Finance Bill

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

How quickly a particular case will be dealt with depends on the length of time it takes to be resolved. The right hon. Gentleman will know from his considerable experience as a Treasury Minister that some of these cases can take a number of years. It is worth pointing out that, by and large, large corporates tend to be involved in this type of litigation. The length of time it will take for a case to be resolved is ultimately unaffected by these changes. Their only significance is that there will not be interim payments in these rare cases.

The right hon. Gentleman asked how many cases there are per year. I cannot give him the number straight away, but it is very low. In the vast majority of cases, disputes are taken through the tax tribunal. As I say, this is about making common law cases consistent with tax tribunal cases. It is difficult to give the precise number of cases per year, but we are talking about low numbers.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for responding to my right hon. Friend’s useful question. Will he clarify why the Government are proposing this change as a new clause to the Finance Bill? What has come to light between the initial drafting of the Bill and this stage in the proceedings, which is clearly very late given that the Bill is due to receive its Third Reading today?

[Mr Gauke]

We have introduced it at this point because recent jurisprudence has crystallised our view in this regard. As I say, we want consistency between common law cases and tax tribunal cases. A degree of volatility has been created in terms of tax revenues that none of us should welcome. In short, the answer to the hon. Lady’s question is that the reason is recent jurisprudence.

Let me give the right hon. Gentleman a little more detail in response to his question about rare cases. HMRC is aware of fewer than 10 strands of litigation where tax issues are being handled through the High Court. That is not to say that they would necessarily all involve interim payments, but I hope that that gives some sense of the scale of the issue. As I say, it is a procedural matter.

[Mr Gauke]

The first point to make is that this does not ultimately change the amount of tax at stake, because a litigant will either win or not win. If a litigant who ultimately wins has not had access to an interim payment as a consequence of this measure, that does not change what they will ultimately receive. Some of these cases involve large sums of money, sometimes many millions of pounds. In some cases, interim payments have been very significant. However, I stress that this does not ultimately change how much money will end up in the pocket of the litigant. It is a question of timing and ensuring that we have some consistency.

Turning to why we are doing this now, it follows recent jurisprudence of the Court relating to the application of the interim awards procedure. This jurisprudence has crystallised our view that the interim payment procedure is not suitable for complex tax disputes. There is also an element of risk management in this. HMRC is routinely involved in litigation where the tax at stake may be for very high sums of money. The granting of payments on an interim basis before a final decision has been reached contributes to the volatility of tax revenues. By limiting the application of the interim payment procedure in common law court claims relating to taxation matters, and bringing the system into better alignment with what is standard practice in the tax tribunal, the new clause will cut down on complex work associated with calculating claims on a contingent basis before matters relating to liability and quantum have been resolved by the judiciary.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The information being provided by the Minister is very helpful. The impact note states that the change will have no Exchequer impact, but that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will benefit from reduced administrative costs and burdens. Is the Minister able to put a sum on that economic benefit to the Treasury?

[Mr Gauke]

That is a fair question and there will be a benefit to HMRC, but it is difficult to put a sum on it. I do not want to overstate the argument—we are not talking about an administrative saving of many millions of pounds—but clearly these cases are difficult to deal with. They involve the additional complexity involved in large-scale litigation matters that are taken through the courts. There is a saving, but I do not want to overstate it. The hon. Lady raises a perfectly fair question, but it is difficult to provide a precise number.

At a time when there is considerable pressure on resources, it is difficult to justify the considerable additional work that the interim payment procedure creates for the Revenue by adding stages to the litigation process. We have, therefore, taken the decision to legislate now in order to achieve better alignment between the treatment of different tax cases at the earliest opportunity. The Government believe that this will help bring an end to misalignment whereby the availability of interim payments in the context of tax differs depending on whether claims are brought in the court system or the tribunal system.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive account of new clause 7 and for responding to our queries. As he has said, the Government want to introduce a number of new clauses and amendments to the Bill. Could you clarify, Mr Deputy Speaker, whether we are dealing with just new clause 7 at this stage, or are we taking any other amendments?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Just new clause 7.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I appreciate that clarification.

New clause 7 makes changes to the procedure for the granting of interim payments in common law claims relating to taxation matters so that the treatment of tax cases commenced under common law court claims and tax tribunals will be more closely aligned in future. We support this simplification process, and the Minister’s response to our probing questions during his generous explanation of the new clause has clarified the issue.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Is it appropriate, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I now speak to amendments 52 and 53, tabled in my name?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

These Government amendments make important changes to the UK’s inheritance tax rules.

Amendments 1 to 7 will bring in greater flexibility and provide more individuals with the option to elect to be treated as UK domiciled for the purposes of inheritance tax. They demonstrate the Government’s willingness to listen to the views of external interested parties and act where there is a principled case for change.

Amendments 35 to 51 are being made as a result of comments by interested parties. They clarify the technical interpretation of the legislation and change the commencement provisions with respect to certain liabilities.

Let me turn first to amendments 1 to 7 to clause 175. The clause reforms the inheritance tax treatment of transfers between UK-domiciled individuals and their non-UK-domiciled spouses or civil partners. The changes allow individuals who are not domiciled in the United Kingdom but who have a UK-domiciled spouse or civil partner to elect to be treated as domiciled in the UK for the purposes of inheritance tax.

The amendments are being made following comments from two key interested parties—the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the London Society of Chartered Accountants—about how the Finance Bill as drafted amends the inheritance tax treatment of spouses and civil partners not domiciled in the UK. Their further representations since the publication of the Bill in March have helped us understand the concerns raised in more detail. Considering the points raised has taken time, but the amendments will resolve these issues.

The clause as drafted stipulates that a person must be non-UK-domiciled and married at the time they make an election. Consequently, a person who has recently become UK domiciled would not be able to make a retrospective election that would cover a period when he or she had been non-domiciled. Effectively, they are trapped if they are not aware of the possible IHT consequences at the point just before they become UK domiciled—for example, if they decide to remain in the UK indefinitely after having children here. This might be especially harsh in situations where the original UK-domiciled spouse dies suddenly having made potentially exempt transfers to the surviving spouse.

Similarly, the Bill as drafted requires a person to remain married to, or in a civil partnership with, the UK-domiciled spouse or civil partner throughout the “relevant period” preceding the election, which can be up to seven years. Therefore, in circumstances where the marriage or civil partnership has been dissolved and the person is a non-domiciled individual, they are prevented from making an election retrospectively and hence prevented from gaining access to spousal relief for the period when they were married in return for their overseas assets being brought into IHT. That was not the intention of the policy.

Amendments 1 to 7 remove the condition that a person must be non-UK-domiciled at the time of making an election. They also remove the requirement that the person making the election is married or in a civil partnership with the UK-domiciled individual throughout the relevant period. The amended clause stipulates instead that they were married or in civil partnership at any time during the relevant period.

As a result of these amendments, individuals who are domiciled in the UK but who were previously domiciled elsewhere will be able to make a retrospective election. Similarly, the amendments will also enable individuals previously married or in a civil partnership to make a retrospective election following divorce or dissolution. This will ensure that changes in domicile or marriage status do not restrict the ability of individuals to elect to be within the UK inheritance tax system.

Amendment 1 simply removes a sub-paragraph that is no longer required as a consequence of amendments 2 to 6, while amendment 7 provides clarity that the provision for revoking an election applies only to the person who made the election and not to that person’s personal representatives.

Let me now turn to amendments 35 to 51 to schedule 34. Clause 174 and schedule 34 reform the inheritance tax treatment of outstanding liabilities. They introduce new conditions and restrictions on when a liability can be deducted from the value of an estate.

The current rules allow almost all outstanding liabilities at death to reduce the value of an estate, irrespective of how the borrowed moneys have been used, or whether the loan is repaid following the death. That creates opportunities for avoidance and can lead to decisions and arrangements being made purely for tax reasons. A range of contrived arrangements and avoidance schemes on the market seek to exploit the current rules. The number of those is expected to grow as other avoidance routes are closed off.

There is an inconsistency in how the current rules treat liabilities that are used to acquire assets that qualify for relief, but that are secured against different types of assets. That creates an advantageous tax position and distorts decision making by encouraging individuals to secure business loans against their personal property where there may be no need to do so. The Government believe that the tax system should neither encourage nor penalise the choice of one form of security over another.

Clause 174 and schedule 34 address those opportunities for avoidance and inconsistency in three ways. First, deductions will be disallowed where the loan has been used to acquire excluded property—that is, property which is excluded from the charge to inheritance tax. Secondly, where the loan has been used to acquire relievable property—that is, property which qualifies for a relief—the relief will be allowed against the net value of the property after deducting the loan. Thirdly, the loan will generally be allowable as a deduction only if it has been repaid from assets in the estate.

The Government are making those changes to improve the integrity and fairness of the inheritance tax system, close avoidance opportunities and remove the inconsistency in the treatment of loans.

Following the publication of the Finance Bill in March, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has received comments from representative bodies, practitioners and individuals that have highlighted sections of the legislation that could be clarified. Interested parties have also expressed concern that the new provisions will apply retrospectively where individuals have secured business loans on their non-business property for commercial reasons, rather than for avoidance purposes, before the changes were announced. Those individuals would face a higher IHT bill if they died before the debt was repaid.

Amendments 35 to 49 clarify the interpretation of the legislation to ensure that it works as intended, and address some of the technical issues identified in feedback. If a loan has been used to acquire excluded property, which later becomes chargeable to IHT, amendment 37 will allow the deduction for the liability. Conversely, if chargeable property subsequently becomes excluded property, the amendment will deny the deduction.

Where a loan has been used to acquire relievable property and that property is given away before death, amendments 41 and 42 will ensure that the liability is not deducted again against other types of property if it has already been taken into account. Amendment 45 will widen the meaning of “estate” to allow the liability to be repaid from property that is usually treated as being outside a person’s estate for IHT purposes, such as foreign property that is owned by an individual who is not domiciled in the UK. Where a loan has not been repaid and the deduction is disallowed, amendment 47 will make it clear that the liability will not reduce the amount that would be eligible for the inheritance tax exemption for transfers between spouses or civil partners.

The Government recognise that some lenders may require security in the form of personal assets and that individuals who have secured existing loans against their personal property to finance business investment may not be able to restructure the loan or unwind the arrangements. Amendments 50 and 51 will therefore amend the commencement date so that the new rules dealing with liabilities incurred to acquire relievable property will apply only to new loans taken out on or after 6 April 2013. That will mean that someone who took out a business loan in the past secured against their other assets will not be affected by the new provisions.

The commencement date for the other provisions in schedule 34 will remain unchanged as the date of Royal Assent. Those provisions will apply to other liabilities, irrespective of when they were incurred.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The Minister is again providing a thorough explanation of the Government amendments. He may recall that the Chartered Institute of Taxation expressed concerns that clause 174 and schedule 34 were “profoundly anti-business” and did “not recognise economic realities”. Will the Minister provide reassurance that the Government are confident that those concerns are addressed by today’s amendments?

[Mr Gauke]

We have sought to address many of the concerns that have been raised. It is perhaps worth outlining the policy objective of limiting the deduction for liabilities. It removes a tax advantage that certain schemes and arrangements seek to achieve. It removes an anomaly in the current rules that may distort business financing decisions. The measures will ensure that the value of an estate that is subject to IHT reflects the normal economic consequences of incurring a liability. They support our policies on anti-avoidance and fairness.

--- Later in debate ---

The amendments will improve the inheritance tax rules. They will bring greater flexibility and provide more individuals with the option to elect to be treated as UK domiciled for the purposes of inheritance tax. They will ensure that the new provisions in clause 174 and schedule 34 reduce potential tax losses and reduce the role of inheritance tax in business financing decisions, while minimising the impact on legitimate arrangements.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Amendments 1 to 7 will make technical changes to clause 175, which introduces provisions by which an individual who is or has been married to or who is or has been in a civil partnership with someone who is domiciled in the UK can elect to be treated as UK domiciled for inheritance tax purposes. The Minister has set out in detail the reasons for the changes and the expected impact.

I have one additional question. The impact note that was published with the amendments states that there will be a negligible impact in this year, but that in future years there is expected to be a £5 million negative impact on the Exchequer. Will the Minister clarify how and why that negative impact will be realised?

Amendments 35 to 51 will alter schedule 34 and clause 174 on the treatment of liabilities for inheritance tax purposes. Understandably, the Minister focused on those proposals for the majority of his remarks, because they have been the subject of significant concern from a number of quarters. As he explained, the clause was drafted in response to avoidance schemes and arrangements that sought to exploit the inheritance tax rules that allow for a deduction for liabilities owed by the deceased against the value of an estate, regardless of whether the debt is paid after death.

HMRC has outlined some of those arrangements. Some involve contrived debts that are subsequently not repaid, so there is no real reduction in the value of the estate. Others involve loans that are used to acquire assets that are not chargeable to inheritance tax or which qualify for a relief so that the value of the estate is doubly reduced. The policy intention of the measure is to remove the tax advantage that such schemes and arrangements seek to achieve through the exploitation of that loophole. Obviously, that is an aim that the Opposition support.

The impact assessment shows a net positive return to the Exchequer of £5 million in 2013-14, rising to £20 million in 2014-15, then falling and remaining steady at £15 million after 2017-18. It is obvious why the impact will be lower in 2013-14, but it would be helpful if the Minister would clarify why the return is expected to peak at £20 million and peter down to £15 million on an ongoing basis. Presumably, individuals who are aware of the changes will, as executors, adjust their tax planning behaviour, but it would be interesting to understand why we expect that increase in 2014-15, and why the return will continue at £15 million on an ongoing basis. Is that return expected to continue indefinitely in terms of tax protected by the Exchequer?

A number of concerns about this measure were raised in Committee, and also expressed by several external organisations that the Minister mentioned. Most notably, there is concern that the new rules are too broad and may unintentionally catch genuine existing arrangements, rather than solely avoidance behaviour. It is welcome that amendments 35 to 51 seek to focus the new rules more tightly, and clarify the legislation where appropriate to minimise the impact on those with innocent arrangements. Despite the amendments, there are still a number of concerns about clause 174 and schedule 34. I have already asked the Minister whether he is confident that those concerns have been addressed, because even despite the amendments, concerns continued to be raised. It would be helpful if the Minister would provide comfort to the House, members of the public and tax professionals who are concerned about the clause.

The key concern expressed by the Chartered Institute of Taxation relates to debts that are not discharged from the estate of a deceased person. New provisions in clause 174 appear to mean that if a debt has not been discharged directly out of an estate, it will not be deductible for inheritance tax purposes. For example, if the deceased’s estate contains a house subject to a mortgage, the mortgage debt might be repaid from the proceeds of an insurance policy, payable directly to the beneficiary. Although a spouse or civil partner would not be subject to inheritance tax under such circumstances, a cohabitee or orphan child would be. Alternatively, if there is no insurance to pay off the mortgage, the beneficiary might take on the mortgage debt. In either case, as liability will not have been discharged directly out of the estate, which is a requirement of the new provision, it appears that it will not therefore be deductable.

I understand that HMRC intends to deal with such scenarios in its guidance, but it would be helpful for the Minister to clarify the position in his response. The Chartered Institute of Taxation previously expressed concerns that the measures are “profoundly anti-business” and do “not recognise economic realities”. Indeed, it went so far as to state

“we can hardly think of a more counter-productive measure than to deny relief for lending related to business.”

I am sure the Government will want to respond to that strong concern, given current economic conditions and their stated desire to stimulate economic growth. I am sure it is not their intention to enact measures that could be counter-intuitive to that desire.

The Government’s amendments mean that new rules on liabilities incurred to acquire a relievable property will apply to loans taken out or varied on or after 6 April 2013. That is important because of the retroactive nature of schedule 34, which has been criticised given the significant implications for business loans taken out many years ago and secured against a person’s house.

The Chartered Institute of Taxation continues to be concerned that the amendments do not provide adequate protection for small businesses. If a business loan was taken out many years ago but is varied after 6 April 2013, the transitional protection offered by the amendments falls away. That could trap small business owners into existing loans, or hinder anyone whose loan comes to an end, where the bank wants to alter the terms, or if the individual wants to refinance. Ultimately, the Chartered Institute of Taxation fears that that could result in people facing an unenviable choice between selling the family home and selling their business if the business owner dies. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s comments on those concerns.

To return briefly to my comments on amendments 1 to 7, the impact assessment states that the proposed changes could impact on small businesses. There has been no consultation with small firms or any other groups, so perhaps the Minister will confirm that both sets of changes will not have the detrimental impact on small businesses and business lending that many tax professionals are concerned about.

[Mr Gauke]

I will try to address the hon. Lady’s points. First, on inheritance tax and non-domiciled spouses, she correctly mentioned the costs of the policy, which are largely due to an increase in the lifetime limit set out in the Budget documents. Clause 176 increases that limit from £55,000 to £325,000—it has not been increased since 1982, and we wanted to address that to be fair to non-domiciled spouses. That is the reason for the cost.

The yield from measures in clause 134 and schedule 34 comes from two main types of avoidance scheme that will be closed by these provisions. The main impact on one will be relatively short-lived. The hon. Lady is right to point out that we expect tax agents providing tax avoidance schemes to move on to new schemes in other parts of the tax code, and that will have a behavioural impact. That explains the peak in one year—2014-15—and the £15 million yield for subsequent years.

The hon. Lady mentioned the impact on business and I refer her to my earlier remarks—as you will have noted, Mr Deputy Speaker, I covered quite a lot of ground in a fairly lengthy speech. Estates will continue to get a deduction for loans or liabilities, provided they are not used to acquire assets that are not chargeable to inheritance tax and are repaid after death, unless there are genuine commercial reasons for non-repayment. Business and investment decisions are made on a range of factors, including tax. One of the Government’s key principles for good taxation is that the tax system should be efficient. It should neither favour nor penalise one form of lending or security over another. The new provisions will ensure that this is the case.

--- Later in debate ---

On consultation, the provisions are designed primarily to tackle avoidance schemes, such as those involving debts between connected parties. As is normal practice for such measures, there was no consultation and draft legislation was not published in advance. To do so would have exposed the avoidance schemes to greater publicity, potentially encouraging more schemes to be set up. Following the publication of the Finance Bill, the Government, as expected, received comments from interested parties and are responding to the many concerns raised by tabling amendments on Report to clarify and improve the Bill.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I appreciate the Minister’s point, but I question the reference to how the majority of small businesses manage to secure funding. Small businesses in particular are struggling to obtain funding from banks.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are wandering away from the amendment, and I know the hon. Lady just wanted to make a point on the amendment.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My point relates specifically to the amendment, Mr Deputy Speaker. Many businesses that manage to obtain funding are often required to provide their home as security. If this provision has a detrimental impact on small businesses and puts family homes in jeopardy, will the Government keep it under review?

[Mr Gauke]

I can appreciate why the hon. Lady raises that point, but recent evidence from inheritance tax returns suggests that the majority of business overdrafts and loans continue to be unsecured. There may well have been changes to the balance between secured and unsecured business overdrafts and loans in recent years, but it remains the case that the majority are unsecured. Where security is provided, it is typically in the form of a charge on a business property. I understand why she raises the point, but the evidence suggests that this will not cause the concern that she anticipates. All measures are kept under review and this will be no exception, but we believe that we have got the balance right. This will address a distortion and an avoidance opportunity. I therefore hope that these proposals, as refined by the amendments, will become part of the Bill.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendments made: 2, page 105, leave out lines 39 to 43.

Amendment 3, page 106, line 4, leave out ‘spouse or civil partner’s’ and insert ‘deceased’s’.

Amendment 4, page 106, line 7, leave out from first ‘date’ to end of line 19 and insert—

‘if, on the date—

(a) in the case of a lifetime election—

(i) the person making the election was married to, or in a civil partnership with, the spouse or civil partner, and

(ii) the spouse or civil partner was domiciled in the United Kingdom, or

(b) in the case of a death election—

(i) the person who is, by virtue of the election, to be treated as domiciled in the United Kingdom was married to, or in a civil partnership with, the deceased, and

(ii) the deceased was domiciled in the United Kingdom.’.

Amendment 5, page 106, line 21, leave out ‘spouse or civil partner’ and insert ‘deceased’.

Amendment 6, page 106, line 27, leave out ‘or (4)(b)’.

Amendment 7, page 106, line 41, leave out ‘a lifetime or death election’ and insert

‘an election under section 267ZA(1)’.—(Mr Gauke.)

Schedule 2

Tax advantaged employee share schemes

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

Clause 14 and schedule 2 provide a wide-ranging simplification of the four tax advantaged employee share schemes, following recommendations by the Office of Tax Simplification. The Government are introducing amendments 8 to 16 to provide further clarity on the rules that apply where company events involving “general offers” take place. When clause 14 was discussed in Committee, we highlighted some of the improvements that we are making to simplify the tax advantaged employee share schemes, and I shall provide hon. Members with some background on the specific provisions relating to these amendments.

Current legislation allows employees affected by certain company events, such as takeovers, to exchange their original scheme shares or options for shares or options in the acquiring company. The schedule also creates new rights for participants to realise scheme shares or exercise options without tax liability in the event of a cash takeover of their company.

Earlier this year, a tax tribunal hearing a particular case published a decision on what constitutes a “general offer” for the whole of the ordinary share capital of a company. Following this decision, and a number of requests from taxpayers and advisers, the Government consider it desirable to clarify the scope of what constitutes a “general offer” for the purposes of the provisions. The amendments clarify the position across all four tax advantaged employee share schemes, and confirm the rules as they have been consistently applied by HMRC. Our aim is to remove any uncertainty for advisers and taxpayers, consistent with the general simplification theme of the changes. The amendments, alongside the changes that already form part of the Bill, demonstrate the Government’s commitment to simplifying and clarifying the tax rules where possible.

[Catherine McKinnell]

These are technical amendments tabled in response to concerns about the operation of the share incentive plans in section 498 and schedule 2 to the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003. The amendments will clarify save-as-you-earn option schemes. We support the clarification of the rules that apply when general offers take place.

Amendment 8 agreed to.

Amendments made: 9, page 144, line 45, after ‘“(7)’, insert—

‘For the purposes of sub-paragraph (5) it does not matter if the general offer is made to different shareholders by different means.

(8) ’.

Amendment 10, page 146, line 20, at end insert—

“(3DA) In subsection (3D)(a) the reference to the issued ordinary share capital of the relevant company does not include any capital already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person and in subsection (3D)(b) the reference to the shares in the relevant company does not include any shares already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person.

(3DB) For the purposes of subsection (3D)(a) and (b) it does not matter if the general offer is made to different shareholders by different means.’.

Amendment 11, page 147, line 16, at end insert—

‘(1A) After sub-paragraph (3) insert—

(3A) In sub-paragraph (3)(a) the reference to the issued ordinary share capital of the company does not include any capital already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person and in sub-paragraph (3)(b) the reference to the shares in the company does not include any shares already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person.

(3B) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(a) and (b) it does not matter if the general offer is made to different shareholders by different means.”

(1B) A SAYE option scheme approved before the day on which this Act is passed which contains provision under paragraph 37(1) of Schedule 3 to ITEPA 2003 by reference to paragraph 37(2) has effect with any modifications needed to reflect the amendment made by sub-paragraph (1A).’.

Amendment 12, page 147, line 37, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—

‘(1) In Part 7 of Schedule 3 (exercise of share options) paragraph 38 (exchange of options on company reorganisation) is amended as follows.

(1A) In sub-paragraph (2)(c)—

(a) after “982” insert “or 983 to 985”, and

(b) after “shareholder” insert “etc”.

(1B) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—

“(2A) In sub-paragraph (2)(a)(i) the reference to the issued ordinary share capital of the scheme company does not include any capital already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person and in sub-paragraph (2)(a)(ii) the reference to the shares in the scheme company does not include any shares already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person.

(2B) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(a)(i) and (ii) it does not matter if the general offer is made to different shareholders by different means.”’

Amendment 13, page 149, line 34, at end insert—

“(2HA) In subsection (2H)(a) the reference to the issued ordinary share capital of the relevant company does not include any capital already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person and in subsection (2H)(b) the reference to the shares in the relevant company does not include any shares already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person.

(2HB) For the purposes of subsection (2H)(a) and (b) it does not matter if the general offer is made to different shareholders by different means.’.

Amendment 14, page 150, line 31, at end insert—

“(3A) In sub-paragraph (3)(a) the reference to the issued ordinary share capital of the company does not include any capital already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person and in sub-paragraph (3)(b) the reference to the shares in the company does not include any shares already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person.

(3B) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)(a) and (b) it does not matter if the general offer is made to different shareholders by different means.’.

Amendment 15, page 151, line 6, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—

‘(1) In Part 6 of Schedule 4 (exercise of share options) paragraph 26 (exchange of options on company reorganisation) is amended as follows.

(1A) In sub-paragraph (2)(c)—

(a) after “982” insert “or 983 to 985”, and

(b) after “shareholder” insert “etc”.

(1B) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—

“(2A) In sub-paragraph (2)(a)(i) the reference to the issued ordinary share capital of the scheme company does not include any capital already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person and in sub-paragraph (2)(a)(ii) the reference to the shares in the scheme company does not include any shares already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person.

(2B) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(a)(i) and (ii) it does not matter if the general offer is made to different shareholders by different means.”’.

Amendment 16, page 151, line 13, at end insert—

‘Enterprise management incentives

30A (1) In Part 6 of Schedule 5 (company reorganisations) in paragraph 39 (introduction) after sub-paragraph (3) insert—

“(4) In sub-paragraph (2)(a)(i) the reference to the issued share capital of the company does not include any capital already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person and in sub-paragraph (2)(a)(ii) the reference to the shares in the company does not include any shares already held by the person making the offer or a person connected with that person.

(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(a)(i) and (ii) it does not matter if the general offer is made to different shareholders by different means.”

(2) The amendment made by this paragraph comes into force on such day as the Treasury may by order appoint.’.—(Mr Gauke.)

Schedule 9

Qualifying Insurance Policies

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)]

I beg to move amendment 17, page 205, line 7, after ‘(g)’, insert ‘or (4A)’.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

Allow me now to turn to amendments 52 and 53, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin). I recognise that she speaks from experience and in support of concerns raised by her constituents. I have listened very carefully to those points, and I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue. In providing some additional background to the annual premium limit, I hope that she will be reassured by the safeguards that we have introduced—and the reasons for introducing them—and will consider not pressing her amendments. Amendments 52 and 53 ask that the Government exclude assignments that make a policy non-qualifying where either the policy has an annual premium of £3,600 or less, or the policy is subject to capital gains tax.

Let me respond to some of the points raised by my hon. Friend. She commented that seven small businesses selling second-hand endowment policies could close as a result of the change to the tax treatment of qualifying policies. We recognise that these policies are likely to sell for less on the market where the purchaser is an individual who is a higher or additional rate taxpayer, due to the income tax charge when the policy matures. Let me reassure her that there is currently no bar to the sale of non-qualifying policies on the market and that research from the industry shows that non-qualifying policies are currently sold in the market. We envisage that this market might actually increase as a result of fewer QPs being available for sale.

Let me reassure the House that any adverse impact of the tax changes will be limited to those purchasers who are higher or additional rate taxpayers. Where a second-hand endowment policy is bought by a corporate investor or a basic rate taxpayer, there will be no impact on the tax position of the buyer when the policy matures. As a result, the loss of QP status will not make these policies any less attractive for those investors.

My hon. Friend made a point about capital gains. Previously, the purchaser of a traded endowment policy would have been liable to tax under the capital gains tax regime. That tax treatment was based on the maturity proceeds, less what the purchaser paid to acquire and maintain the policy. Capital gains tax treatment was more favourable, in that no additional tax would be payable unless the gains exceeded the annual exempt amount. In practice, it is likely that higher or additional rate taxpayers structured their affairs so as to ensure that little or no capital gains tax would be payable by using their full annual exempt allowance for a tax year. For 2013-14, that amount is £10,900. There is an additional safeguard for basic rate taxpayers who fall into the higher tax bracket as a result of the policy maturing. If that happens, the individual will get top-slicing relief, which reduces any additional tax payable. The relief is not available if the taxpayer is already a higher or additional rate taxpayer when the policy matures.

My hon. Friend has stated that her amendments would set the same annual premium limit for traded endowment policies as that set for new policies and existing policies. The annual premium limit of £3,600 applies to each individual rather than to a single policy. The effect of amendment 52 would be to exclude a policy from the limit if it had an annual premium payable of £3,600 or less. Purchasers of traded endowment policies will already have an annual premium limit of £3,600 applying to their own policies. As a result of that amendment, they would also be able to acquire as many traded endowment policies as they could afford, so long as each of those policies had premiums payable under the threshold. That would put an individual who had taken out a qualifying policy from the outset at a disadvantage to an individual who later acquired a policy. Amendment 52 would not result in a level and fair playing field. Rather, it would inadvertently create an unfair advantage for purchasers of these traded endowment policies.

My hon. Friend understandably referred to the restrictions on assignments for consideration, which are an essential part of the policy. The aim of our measure is to help to promote fairness in the tax system by limiting the tax relief available to higher rate and additional rate taxpayers. Without this restriction, individuals in a financial position to purchase traded endowment policies would be able to acquire qualifying policies without limit, while everyone else would be subject to the £3,600 annual premium limit. That would put an individual who had taken out a qualifying policy from the outset at a disadvantage to an individual who later acquired a policy, which would be unfair and inconsistent.

My hon. Friend considers that there is an element of retrospection about applying the annual premium limit to any QPs existing before 6 April 2013. Let me reassure her that there is no element of retrospection. The sale of a traded endowment policy on or after 6 April 2013 is treated no differently from an individual varying an existing policy after that date either to change the term or to vary the annual premiums payable. In all those cases, an individual will have made a conscious decision with regard to an existing product in full knowledge of the tax consequences resulting from that decision. The Government’s position is therefore that it would be unfair, inconsistent and disproportionate to allow all pre-6 April 2013 policies to remain qualifying following assignment to maintain the secondary traded endowment market.

The Government have listened to my hon. Friend’s concerns, however. As a result of the representations made, we would like to remind her that amendment 19 proposes giving HMRC a power to deal, in regulations, with any additional circumstances for which exclusion may be appropriate. I will ask officials to meet my hon. Friend’s constituents and to work with the industry to ensure that the annual premium limit remains proportionate as it beds in. I want to reassure her that if the evidence shows that the impact of the annual premium limit would prematurely bring to an end the traded endowment market, as she fears, the Government would consider using their power in amendment 19 to address the matter in a proportionate way, following discussions with interested parties. I hope that that provides her with a degree of reassurance that the Government are listening, and I respectfully ask her not to press her amendments to a vote.

These important technical changes enjoy the broad support of the life insurance industry. They will provide a more effective and more proportionate regime for the operation of the annual premium limit on QPs, and help to ensure that tax reliefs for QPs are appropriately given. I therefore commend Government amendments 17 to 29 to the House.

Amendment 17 agreed to.

Amendments made: 18, page 206, line 32, after ‘(g)’, insert ‘or (4A)’.

Amendment 19, page 213, line 25, at end insert—

“(4A) The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs may by regulations provide that sub-paragraph (2) does not apply if prescribed conditions are met in relation to the assignment.

“Prescribed” means prescribed by the regulations.

(4B) Regulations under sub-paragraph (4A) may—

(a) make different provision for different cases or circumstances, and

(b) contain incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision.’.

Amendment 20, page 213, line 27, after ‘(3)’, insert ‘or (4A)’.

Amendment 21, page 213, line 48, after ‘(g)’, insert ‘or (4A)’.

Amendment 22, page 214, line 33, at end insert—

“(6A) The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs may by regulations provide that an individual is not required to comply with sub-paragraph (2) if prescribed conditions are met.

“Prescribed” means prescribed by the regulations.

(6B) Accordingly, if by virtue of regulations under sub-paragraph (6A) an individual is not required to comply with sub-paragraph (2), sub-paragraph (3) does not apply because that individual does not comply with sub-paragraph (2).’.

Amendment 23, page 214, line 42, leave out ‘Finance Act 2013 is passed’ and insert—

‘first regulations under paragraph (c) below come into force’.

Amendment 24, page 215, line 12, at end insert—

“(8A) Sub-paragraph (8B) applies in relation to a policy if the obligations under the policy of its issuer are at any time the obligations of another person (“the transferee”) to whom there has been a transfer of the whole or any part of a business previously carried on by the issuer.

(8B) In relation to that time, in sub-paragraph (2) the reference to the issuer of the policy is to be read as a reference to the transferee.’.

Amendment 25, page 215, line 13, after ‘sub-paragraph’ insert ‘(6A) or’.

Amendment 26, page 221, line 38, leave out from ‘regulations’ to end of line 9 on page 222 and insert ‘—

(a) requiring relevant persons—

(i) to provide prescribed information to persons who apply for the issue of qualifying policies or who are, or may be, required to make statements under paragraph B3(2) of Schedule 15;

(ii) to provide to an officer of Revenue and Customs prescribed information about qualifying policies which have been issued by them or in relation to which they are or have been a relevant transferee;

(b) making such provision (not falling within paragraph (a)) as the Commissioners think fit for securing that an officer of Revenue and Customs is able—

(i) to ascertain whether there has been or is likely to be any contravention of the requirements of the regulations or of paragraph B3(2) of Schedule 15;

(ii) to verify any information provided to an officer of Revenue and Customs as required by the regulations.’.

Amendment 27, page 222, line 10, leave out ‘(2)’ and insert ‘(1)(b)’.

Amendment 28, page 222, leave out lines 20 and 21.

Amendment 29, page 222, leave out lines 29 and 30 and insert—

‘“relevant person” means a person—

(a) who issues, or has issued, qualifying policies, or

(b) who is, or has been, a relevant transferee in relation to qualifying policies.

(6) For the purposes of this section a person (“X”) is at any time a “relevant transferee” in relation to a qualifying policy if the obligations under the policy of its issuer are at that time the obligations of X as a result of there having been a transfer to X of the whole or any part of a business previously carried on by the issuer.”’.—(Sajid Javid.)

Schedule 34

Treatment of liabilities for inheritance tax purposes

Amendments made: 35, page 424, line 36, leave out ‘subsection (2) or (3)’ and insert ‘subsections (2) to (3A)’.

Amendment 36, page 424, line 38, leave out ‘excluded property’ and insert ‘property mentioned in subsection (1)’.

Amendment 37, page 425, leave out lines 11 to 14 and insert—

‘(3) The liability may be taken into account up to an amount equal to the value of such of the property mentioned in subsection (1) as—

(a) has not been disposed of, and

(b) is no longer excluded property.

(3A) To the extent that any remaining liability is greater than the value of such of the property mentioned in subsection (1) as—

(a) has not been disposed of, and

(b) is still excluded property,

it may be taken into account, but only so far as the remaining liability is not greater than that value for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (3D).

(3B) Subsection (3C) applies where—

(a) a liability or any part of a liability is attributable to financing (directly or indirectly)—

(i) the acquisition of property that was not excluded property, or

(ii) the maintenance, or an enhancement, of the value of such property, and

(b) the property or part of the property—

(i) has not been disposed of, and

(ii) has become excluded property.

(3C) The liability or (as the case may be) the part may only be taken into account to the extent that it exceeds the value of the property, or the part of the property, that has become excluded property, but only so far as it does not exceed that value for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (3D).

(3D) The reasons are—’.

Amendment 38, page 425, line 19, leave out ‘excluded’.

Amendment 39, page 425, line 20, leave out ‘subsection (3)(a)’ and insert ‘this section’.

Amendment 40, page 425, line 23, at end insert—

‘“remaining liability” means the liability mentioned in subsection (1) so far as subsections (2) and (3) do not permit it to be taken into account;’.

Amendment 41, page 426, leave out lines 12 to 19.

Amendment 42, page 426, line 37, at end insert—

‘(7A) Subject to subsection (7B), to the extent that a liability is, in accordance with this section, taken to reduce value in determining the value transferred by a chargeable transfer, that liability is not then to be taken into account in determining the value transferred by any subsequent transfer of value by the same transferor.

(7B) Subsection (7A) does not prevent a liability from being taken into account by reason only that the liability has previously been taken into account in determining the amount on which tax is chargeable under section 64.

(7C) For the purposes of subsections (1) to (4) and (7A), references to a transfer of value or chargeable transfer include references to an occasion on which tax is chargeable under Chapter 3 of Part 3 (apart from section 79) and—

(a) references to the value transferred by a transfer of value or chargeable transfer include references to the amount on which tax is then chargeable, and

(b) references to the transferor include references to the trustees of the settlement concerned.’.

Amendment 43, page 426, line 45, after ‘162A(1)’, insert ‘or (3B)’.

Amendment 44, page 427, line 13, after ‘162A(1)’, insert ‘or (3B)’.

Amendment 45, page 427, line 22, after ‘estate’, insert—

‘or from excluded property owned by the person immediately before death’.

Amendment 46, page 427, leave out lines 32 to 34 and insert—

‘(b) securing a tax advantage is not the main purpose, or one of the main purposes, of leaving the liability or part undischarged, and’.

Amendment 47, page 427, line 42, at end insert—

‘( ) Where, by virtue of this section, a liability is not taken into account in determining the value of a person’s estate immediately before death, the liability is also not to be taken into account in determining the extent to which the estate of any spouse or civil partner of the person is increased for the purposes of section 18.’.

Amendment 48, page 427, line 43, leave out from ‘(2)(b)’ to end of line 46.

Amendment 49, page 428, line 9, after ‘162A(1)’, insert ‘or (3B)’.

Amendment 50, page 428, line 19, leave out ‘The’ and insert—

‘(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), the’.

Amendment 51, page 428, line 21, at end insert—

‘(2) Section 162B of IHTA 1984 (inserted by paragraph 3) only has effect in relation to liabilities incurred on or after 6 April 2013.

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2), where a liability is incurred under an agreement—

(a) if the agreement was varied so that the liability could be incurred under it, the liability is to be treated as having been incurred on the date of the variation, and

(b) in any other case, the liability is to be treated as having been incurred on the date the agreement was made.’. —(Sajid Javid.)

New Clause 10

Impact of the Spending Round 2013 on tax revenue

‘The Chancellor shall publish, within six months of Royal Assent, a review of the impact on revenue from rates and measures in this Act, resulting from the Spending Round 2013. He shall place a copy of the Review in the House of Commons Library.’.—(Catherine McKinnell.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Catherine McKinnell]

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

The Opposition’s new clause 10 challenges the Chancellor to publish, within six months of Royal Assent, a review of the impact of last week’s spending review announcements on tax receipts. Should the Government agree to undertake such a review, as we hope they will, we suspect that its conclusions would be pretty short, given the Chancellor’s comprehensive failure to deliver the economic boost that this country so desperately needs. It was a dead duck of a spending review, and it was even more disappointing, given the context in which it was made. The Chancellor did not want to come to the House to announce a spending review last week, but he was forced to announce a further £11.5 billion of spending cuts in 2015-6. Why? Because his economic plan has utterly and categorically failed.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Is the hon. Lady suggesting that the Government should be borrowing even more billions of pounds than is already the case, or that they should make further cuts? If it is the latter, she should not be surprised if she gets some support from the Government side of the House.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman suggesting that those on the Government Benches are considering supporting our proposal. I wonder whether he has realised that his Government are borrowing £245 billion more than they planned, because they have failed. Their economic plan has failed—it has failed on living standards, on growth and on getting the deficit down. The Chancellor promised in 2010 that by 2015 he would have balanced the books, yet he is borrowing £245 billion more than he planned—and those books will not get balanced in the time frame that he promised.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I support new clause 10 because it is really important to see whether the measures in the spending review will increase tax receipts. My hon. Friend is highlighting the failure over the last three years to get the economy growing and the impact of that on tax receipts. That explains the reality of the further and deeper cuts that the Chancellor promised us we would not have to face.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that interjection, which gets to the crux of the matter. The Chancellor had to come here last week to announce further spending cuts in 2015-16, planning for future failure, because he is failing to deal with the economic reality that we face today. Ultimately, we are tabling this new clause because we hope that the Government will take stock of the situation in which they are leaving households up and down this country. The price of the failure of the Chancellor’s economic plan is not being paid by those at the top. We debated at great length yesterday the fact that the top-earning taxpayers are getting a tax cut from this Government, while it is ordinary families that rely on public services that are paying the price for this economic failure throughout the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Sawford]

My reading of the new clause is that the review would have to be placed in the House of Commons Library within six months. Is it my hon. Friend’s intention to urge the Government to look at infrastructure spending in the review and, specifically, to include the figures on the impact of cutting capital investment again, year on year, in the spending review and what that does for our economy?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Indeed, it is very much the hope that the Government will shine this laser focus on measures to boost spending and boost jobs and growth now in order to stimulate the economy, get people into work and get the welfare bill down. We know that that bill is rising as a result of the failure of the Government’s economic plan. They should focus on infrastructure spending, which is not just what we say, but what the IMF says, too.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

How does the hon. Lady think she could work out the true implications and effect of the spending review in only three months? Why did she choose three months rather than six months, nine months or one year?

[Catherine McKinnell]

That is an interesting question because the new clause suggests that the review should be published “within six months”, so I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has simply misread our new clause. We feel that there is no time to lose, but that six months is a reasonable period to give the Government time to consider the likely impact of the spending round in 2013 on tax receipts. Ultimately, if we are to balance the books and get borrowing down, we are going to have to increase our tax receipts into the Exchequer.

[John Pugh]

Does the hon. Lady recognise that one of the biggest effects of the spending review will be on local government expenditure, which of course has to be dealt with in the following May—falling outside the six-month period? Some of the greater impact of the spending review will be felt after she has asked the Government to produce the report.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I am pleased that we have the hon. Gentleman’s support in principle for the fact that the Government need to take stock of the impact of these spending decisions and his acknowledgement of the devastating impact of the cuts to local authority projects, which we have rehearsed many times here, particularly in areas such as the one I represent. We will not see the impact straight away; we will see it in six months, 12 months, 18 months or two years’ time. The Government have imposed cuts without allowing the economy time to grow, create jobs and consolidate the debt in a responsible way, so we will face the consequences of this economic approach for many years to come. I am pleased, as I say, that the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) recognises that.

[Andy Sawford]

My hon. Friend has mentioned local government cuts. According to my reading of the spending review, capital spending in the budget of the Department for Communities and Local Government is to be cut by 35.6%. Could the review take account of that, although it will be some time before we are aware of its full impact on the economy?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The purpose of the proposed review is to encourage the Government to become laser-focused on the impact of their spending review. My hon. Friend is certainly laser-focused—not just on the impact of the cuts on local authority budgets, but on their impact on jobs and economic growth up and down the country.

Common sense tells us—well, it tells everyone but the Government, it would appear—that boosting growth and living standards this year and next would bring in tax revenues and reduce the scale of the cuts that will be needed in 2015, but nothing in the spending review will boost the economy over the next two years. It seems incredibly complacent and counter-intuitive to come to the House and simply plan for the consequences of economic failure in 2015. We believe that the Chancellor should have used his spending review to concede that he has got it wrong and has failed to secure growth. He should be proposing genuine investment in infrastructure this year.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is, again, making a powerful speech. Is it not the case that 1% growth since 2010 would have generated an additional £335 billion in the economy? As a result of this incompetent economic policy, however, the Government are having to come back and ask for more.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend has made a very good point. I should be interested to hear the Minister’s response to the figures that she has given, and to what she has said about the lost opportunities for growth. Those opportunities, moreover, have not just been lost over the last three years; the Government are planning on the basis of a further two years of lost economic growth, which simply defies common sense. According to the International Monetary Fund, they should be investing in infrastructure this year to boost economic growth and the housing market, and to encourage job creation and increased tax receipts. The Government seem to be ignoring not only what we are saying, but what the IMF is saying.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

The hon. Lady has referred several times to the impact of Government policy on jobs. Does she not recognise and welcome the fact that under the present Government there are more people in work than at any other time in our history? We have created more than 1 million private sector jobs—three for every job lost in the public sector.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I do not think that it can be linked to the economic reality—the reality of what households and people are experiencing. Many people are in insecure work, many are on zero-hour contracts, and many are self-employed. People all over the country feel that their living standards are being squeezed to such an extent that they cannot afford to pay for what they need by the end of the week.

[Debbie Abrahams]

The fact is that the employment rate is lower now than it was in 2008. Absolute numbers mean nothing. The rate is lower now than it was before the recession.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The debate is, to put it politely, starting to go a little wide of the new clause. Perhaps we could focus—in a laser fashion!—on new clause 10.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I think that my hon. Friend has made an important point. What we needed to hear from the Chancellor last week was a plan for economic growth that would boost tax receipts and increase the number of jobs. Ultimately, that is how we can balance the books and reduce the deficit: by getting people into work and reducing their dependence on welfare.

My hon. Friend made a powerful point: the Government should not be so complacent about the unemployment situation in this country, and in particular the long-term unemployment situation.

[Mr Gauke]

On a point of clarification, if the hon. Lady’s party was in government, would it be cutting VAT?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Well, I am pleased that the Minister is engaging with the need to review his own Government’s spending plans so they can take stock of precisely how those plans are working to resolve the unemployment situation and the lack of economic growth in this country. If the Minister could provide some reassurance that his Government are focused on reducing the debt, that would be very helpful.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend was speaking about the spending review’s failure in respect of living standards, and that is crucial. Real wages are set to fall by 2.4% over this Parliament, meaning people will be worse off at the end of the Parliament than they were when this Government came to office. That is the real story: it is a spiral of lower wages, lower living standards and lower tax receipts, and then ultimately more debt, more borrowing and a higher benefits bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the spiral we are in?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Yes. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and it highlights the complacency of this Government. They feel it is a case of “job done” as some jobs have been created in the private sector, but ultimately the reality families are facing is that they cannot afford to pay for heating and buy food and what they need for their children and their families because living standards are being so desperately squeezed.

[Mr Gauke]

I just want to give the hon. Lady another opportunity to answer the simple question I asked. The position of her party has for some time now been to favour a cut in VAT. We do not support that approach, but does she support it? Does the Labour party still believe that, at this precise moment, VAT should be cut to 17.5%?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The Government clearly do not support that approach because one of the first things they did when they came to power was increase VAT and the costs for ordinary families up and down the country. We have said all along that we would not have taken those decisions. We would not have chosen to give a tax cut to those on the highest incomes. We would not have slapped a 2.5% charge on poor families who are struggling to make ends meet. We have made that very clear, but the Government have ignored that call. We think the Government should be taking action now to try to stimulate the economy and put some money back into very hard-pressed families’ hands.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is stating the case for this new clause very clearly. Does she agree that the increase in VAT took a lot of individuals’ spending power out of the economy and also took out a lot of confidence, and that that is what has led to the decline in growth?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Yes, it was a huge blow for families across the country to see costs spiral overnight. This Government seem incredibly complacent about the impact their spending decisions have had, not only on families but on economic growth. We need to look at the facts. The Chancellor promised growth of 6% in 2010. He also promised that he had asked the country for all he would ask for and would not come back for more, but there he was last week, planning for more cuts in 2015 and completely failing to recognise both that his economic plan has resulted in 1% growth, not the 6% he promised, and that his increase in VAT was very much a part of the reason for that.

[Mel Stride]

May I press the hon. Lady for a third time on the question my hon. Friend the Minister has been asking? At this moment in time, given where we are with VAT at 20%, would she advocate, as her party has in the past, that it now be reduced to 17.5%? Also, is her party still in favour of the five-point plan for growth, of which the VAT reduction is but one part?

[Catherine McKinnell]

It is very strange that Government Members, who are in power and making the spending decisions that are having such an impact on families, are solely obsessed with what Labour would be doing. We are in opposition. The hon. Gentleman can speak to his Minister and implore him to make the necessary changes that will bring economic growth back to this country. That is what the Government need to be focused on. The Chancellor is so obsessed with his own economic failure—a failure to recognise that his plan has completely failed—that the Government simply obsess about and focus on what we would be doing, but we are not in government.

[Andy Sawford]

I came in to support my hon. Friend in pushing for new clause 10, which focuses on the impact of the spending review on the economy and, in particular, on tax revenue, so I am a little surprised at the nature of the debate. However, would she envisage the review examining the implications of the tax cut for millionaires on the economy over the past few years? Would it examine the impact of giving the richest people in our country a tax cut, as that is an actual policy?

[Catherine McKinnell]

To be fair, and to stay laser-focused on the new clause, I should say that we hope and envisage that the Government’s review would look at the impact of the spending review they announced last week. We heard more promises of action from the Government last week, but we did not hear about action that will take place next week, next month or even next year. We heard the Government pledging action on infrastructure investment in two years’ time.

That would be bad enough even if the Government had a proud record, or indeed any record at all, on delivering on the infrastructure projects they announced three years ago. As we have heard a few times—it bears repeating because the figures are so shocking—just seven out of 571 so-called “priority” projects identified by the Government in 2011 in their national infrastructure plan have actually been completed; 80% of the projects announced have not even got off the ground. Despite all the hype, if we delve into the figures, we find that the Government are cutting investment in infrastructure in real terms by 1.7% by 2015. Instead of an urgent boost to jobs and growth, which this country is crying out for, by bringing forward long-term investment in infrastructure, as advocated not only by us but by the International Monetary Fund, all we got was a series of empty promises for two years’ time—and some for beyond that—from a Government who lack all credibility on this issue.

[Andy Sawford]

My hon. Friend rightly talks about how few of the Government’s priority infrastructure projects have begun. Does she hope the review would also examine progress on the Government’s priority school building programme? I understand that there are 261 projects, and I wonder whether she has had time to consider how much progress has been made on them.

[Catherine McKinnell]

That is another absolute failure in terms of the promises made by this Government that are simply not delivered. I hope that the Government will agree to undertake the review we are calling for today and that the House will, by voting with us, acknowledge that the economic plan the Government have so far pursued is failing and that they need to examine what last week’s spending review will deliver. I hope that there will be a recognition that they promised to rebuild, again as part of a “priority” programme, 261 schools and only one project has begun. It is devastating, not just for the children who need those new schools, but for the communities that need those jobs and the small businesses that need to supply the construction industry, which, as we know, has been brought to its knees by this Government’s failure to invest in infrastructure. Instead of investing in affordable homes, improving transport links and repairing Britain’s broken roads, which would give the country the short, medium and long-term returns that we are looking for, the Government are cutting capital spending in 2015. Announcing infrastructure projects for two years’ time will not create a single job today.

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is making a crucial point about the impact on jobs. I had hoped that the spending review would consider jobs in the construction sector, where 84,000 jobs have been lost since the Tory Government came to power—that is, between the second quarter of 2010 and the first quarter of 2013. That is a shocking figure: 84,000 jobs have been lost when we should have seen 84,000 jobs created in the construction sector.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend makes his point very powerfully. It is a fact that a number of jobs have been lost in the construction industry that should have been created if the Government were taking not just our advice but that of the IMF and investing in infrastructure projects now. If they did so, tax receipts would improve this year and next year and we would not have to plan for failure in 2015, which is what the Chancellor came here to do last week.

[Andy Sawford]

My hon. Friend is right when she talks about the implications of the Government’s failure to invest in house building and construction in this country on the revenue from rates. Does she think that the review placed in the Library ought to consider the implications of the lack of receipts from house building in the Government’s vaunted programmes, such as the community infrastructure levy and so on, as well as of the business rates raised from firms in the construction industry? Is scepticism not one reason behind this request for a review? Four major housing announcements have been made in the past three years, and there have been 300 announcements, four launches and no action, and the lowest house building in 2012 for 70 years, so is there not some scepticism behind it?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend tempts me to suggest a less than honourable motive for our tabling the new clause. I appreciate that there may be some scepticism about the Government’s commitment to investing in infrastructure and growth and that last week’s announcement was simply about planning for more cuts to public services rather than a genuine attempt to try to look for opportunities for growth. It must be said, however, that the spending review, which plans more cuts in 2015 and was accompanied by an infrastructure announcement on Thursday that was mostly reheated—I think my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) described it as a “microwave statement” as its announcements had been reheated so many times—failed to impress anybody.

Liberal Democrat Members in particular should be concerned by statements from the Deputy Prime Minister. He has commented that

“the gap between intention, announcement and delivery is quite significant”.

He puts that rather mildly, and I would hope that by supporting our new clause the Government could take stock of the impact mot just of the 2013 spending round they announced last week but of the delay in delivering any of the projects that have already been announced, as well as the delay pursuant to the announcements that have been made for 2015. This is an important opportunity for the Government to take stock and consider why their economic plan has so catastrophically failed. That would mean that rather than planning for failure in 2015, they could take the steps necessary now to bring forward infrastructure investment and put into play the infrastructure investment that has already been announced so that we can start to create jobs and opportunities for communities up and down the country that are suffering from stagnation in the economy.

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady has made the link between infrastructure and its impact on the construction industry and jobs. Does she therefore welcome the recent survey by the ManpowerGroup of more than 2,000 companies in the construction sector, which concluded that we have the best outlook for construction job creation for five years?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I would welcome any signs of positivity in economic growth from any sector of our economy, especially the construction industry, which has suffered catastrophically from the cuts and stagnation in the economy over the past three years. I would indeed welcome that small piece of good news. It is a step in the right direction, but our amendment calls on the Government to take stock and do more.

[Andy Sawford]

I think construction is an incredibly important part of the economy, so I think it is right that the hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) suggests that the review six months after the spending review would look at construction. I hope it would explore the figures that I have seen, suggesting that the volume of new construction orders fell by 10% between quarter 4 of 2012 and quarter 1 of 2013. Construction is going in the wrong direction at the moment, and we need to know from the review whether the measures in the spending review will actually make that worse.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Ultimately, it is about what we hear in our communities when talking to businesses about confidence—the confidence to invest, the confidence to take seriously the Government’s commitment to investing in infrastructure and growth. The reality on the ground is deeply worrying. Members of the public will be concerned about the complacent tone that the Government adopt towards the economic situation. The Government are apparently ignoring the fact that they promised 6% growth and delivered only 1%, that they promised 576 infrastructure projects and have delivered only seven, that they promised 261 rebuilt schools and have only put spades in the ground in one. Members of the public will be worried to hear how complacent this Government seem to be. That is why we tabled the new clause—to give the Government the opportunity not just to make the announcement and walk away, hoping that nobody will notice that they are doing nothing about economic stagnation, but to spend some time reflecting on what these announcements will mean in real terms in respect of expected tax receipts.

There is one key Government Department that is capable of increasing tax receipts to the Exchequer, and that is Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Indeed, without the receipts that HMRC collects, there would be no funding to invest in public services. HMRC’s capacity and resources are therefore absolutely critical, and it is widely accepted that it can make a pretty impressive return on investment. Last year, senior HMRC officials brought in £16.7 billion over and above what was returned voluntarily by businesses and individuals.

[Andy Sawford]

I am very pleased to hear my hon. Friend highlight the important role that HMRC plays in our economy. Whatever the review shows about the implications of the spending review, one of the key aspects is HMRC’s effectiveness in bringing in tax revenue. Will my hon. Friend therefore urge the Government, in this review, which I hope they will support, to look at the implications of underpayment of wages to people, particularly minimum wage avoidance issues? HMRC recently sent a team to my constituency, and found that £100,000 was owing to local workers. There are huge implications for receipts at HMRC.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. I have tabled several parliamentary questions to the Minister on that subject, and I look forward to his response outlining what action the Government are taking, alongside HMRC, to ensure that it not only collects tax throughout the country but ensures that employers abide by the national minimum wage legislation to ensure that employees do not fall short despite the fact that they are working. It is imperative that HMRC has the Government’s support and also has the correct resources to ensure that workers are not exploited in the way that my hon. Friend suggests is prevalent in his part of the country and which I have no doubt is a phenomenon that impacts on hard-working people countrywide.

Despite the headlines suggesting that everybody is avoiding tax, we are generally a tax-compliant nation—I believe the current figure is approximately 93%. Of course, it is the 7% for which HMRC needs extra support and resources to get the returns. The Association of Revenue and Customs estimates that a senior tax official earning £50,000 a year can expect to generate additional yield of at least £1.5 million a year—a return 30 times greater than the cost of their salary. That is a good investment, I think most would agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Sawford]

My hon. Friend’s question to the Government is incredibly important and I hope we hear an answer. Does she share my concern that some of the measures in the spending review will have serious implications for tax collection unless HMRC has sufficient resources? For example, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said of the shares for rights policy that it has “all the hallmarks” of another tax-avoidance opportunity, and Lord Forsyth, the former Conservative Employment Minister, said it

“has all the trappings of something that was thought up by someone in the bath”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2013; Vol. 744, c. 614.]

HMRC will have to be very alive to these issues of tax avoidance.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Bill Committee debated at some length the fact that the Government like to talk the talk on tax avoidance, but have created another tax-avoidance opportunity in the hare-brained shares for rights scheme. I think we all agree with Lord Forsyth.

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady talks about the importance of clamping down on tax avoidance, and the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) talks about tax avoidance in the context of share transactions. Does she, as I do, condemn the £1.65 million donation to her party by John Mills using precisely that type of scheme—a share donation—as means to “tax efficiently” avoid tax?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be expressing some consternation about his Chancellor’s new shares for rights scheme. I am not sure I heard him express the same concerns when this House debated and voted on that scheme. He knows that any donations made to the Labour party are made within all the rules on donations, and any tax due on those donations will be paid. I think he can rest assured that that is in hand.

Returning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), it is vital that when additional tax avoidance opportunities are created, HMRC has the resources to deal with them, and that it does not take its eye off other aspects of its activity, such as enforcing national minimum wage legislation and general customer service. We know that the National Audit Office report on HMRC’s customer service performance, which was published in December last year, contained some worrying figures on HMRC’s ability to handle customers.

We hope that the review that we are calling on the Government to undertake will look at HMRC’s ability to recover tax receipts and ensure that its customers, many of whom are not customers by choice, get the support they need in order to pay their tax—not just individuals, who are often dealing with tax credits and find that they need support from HMRC, but small businesses that need support in order to pay the right tax. It is not right that individuals and small businesses in particular, but large businesses too, are left struggling to pay the tax that they wish to pay HMRC voluntarily. The Government should be aware that there is a limit to the extent to which HMRC can do more with less, as they are asking of it in the spending review.

[Mel Stride]

Given the hon. Lady’s response to my previous intervention, I wanted to clarify the issue of John Mills and his donation to the Labour party. Does she accept that his donation is a case of tax avoidance—yes or no? [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Mr Sawford, I do not need your help in chairing the debate in the Chamber today. I have done enough Finance Bills to know what is in order and what is not in order. The question that has been put is about tax receipts, excluding the reference to individuals, and that is in order.

[Catherine McKinnell]

It is open to the Government to support our proposed review of spending round 2013 and the impact that that may have on tax receipts. If the hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) wants to support our motion today and the Government in undertaking such a review, it is open to him to do so. We have not specified exactly what should be included in that review and it is open to the Government to look at whatever avoidance opportunities they consider relevant to ensuring that we protect future tax receipts.

I know from written answers that I have received from HMRC recently that staff numbers were projected to fall from 88,875 in March 2009 to 58,464 by March 2014. Will the Minister provide an update on those figures, and in particular what HMRC’s headcount is expected to be by March 2016, following last week’s spending review and the additional resource reduction flowing from it? It is concerning that despite much-publicised announcements about increased investment in tax avoidance and evasion activity, the number of HMRC staff working in enforcement and compliance was expected to fall from 34,762 in March 2009 to 26,905 in March 2014.

I assume that given the Government’s much-stated commitment to getting tough in this area, the predicted fall in staff numbers is no longer going to happen and that we will see a rise in the number of HMRC staff dedicated to enforcement and compliance work. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that for the House and tell us how many HMRC staff will be working in this area between this year and 2015-16.

In conclusion, the Government had the opportunity last week to boost tax receipts by announcing measures that would provide the short and medium-term boost our economy needs while providing a long-term return for the country, yet despite the catastrophic failure of their economic plan to date, the Chancellor came to the House and announced that he would continue ploughing the same infertile furrow he has been on since 2010. He just cannot bring himself to admit that it has gone badly wrong. We believe that conducting the review set out in new clause 10 might just help the Government to take stock and note the error of their ways to date. I therefore urge all Members to support the new clause, not only for the sake of their constituents, but for that of our country’s finances.

[John Pugh]

I will try to say something positive about new clause 10. It is quite laudable, in a way, because it would link spending to taxation and get us to engage in retrospective analysis, and frankly we do not do enough of that in this place. We talk about policy a great deal, but the long-term effects are often hidden from us. It can be quite counter-intuitive. We had an interesting debate yesterday on the 50% tax rate, the Laffer curve and the effect that such a rate might or might not have. There are plenty of other examples where the effect of taxation needs to be adequately scrutinised. In Committee we debated what tax avoidance measures would do to people’s behaviour, what petrol taxation would do to people’s behaviour and to the revenue we get, what landfill tax would do to councils’ behaviour, and what the video games industry would make of the various changes that will affect it.

My problem with what the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) is saying is that I think Parliament should do what she is suggesting. It seems to me that Parliament does not have enough good, accessible data and that we make no real effort to examine the whole business of tax revenue yields in any systematic, thorough, regular or routine way. When it comes to spending, there is a very similar picture. There is no real scrutiny of spending in this place. The scrutiny we do is not even as good as that which might be found in a local council. We have the big events, such as the announcement of the spending review, but there is no detailed examination of expenditure.

If Members do not believe me, they should come along to estimates day tomorrow and see the examination of estimates that is imposed in this place. The last time we had an estimates day, I was actually ruled out of order by the Deputy Speaker—not you, Madam Deputy Speaker—for talking about the estimates, which was thought improper.

We do not examine the non-controversial, everyday departmental expenditure that goes on from year to year and the errors that occur in it. The Public Accounts Committee does a very good job of looking at the controversial stuff, but there is no rigorous, effective or ongoing examination of expenditure. We do not do enough of that and we do not know enough about what tax policy actually does, how Departments spend and what the profile of a Department is on a day-to-day, month-to-month and year-to-year basis.

Arguably, somebody in the basement of the Treasury knows the spending profile of Departments, but they would probably be unable to give the hon. Lady the answer she wants in three months, and probably not in six months. I think she has to recognise that she is making a hard ask and, in my view, probably a futile one, because if we do not do any real scrutiny of taxation in this place—we scrutinise policy, but certainly not outcomes—beyond headline figures and big grandstanding days such as the announcement of the spending review, then what we are essentially doing with the Government finance is firefighting.

What takes place in this place is not effective financial scrutiny. We do not look at the boring, pedestrian, routine and important spending, which is massive. The new clause asks the Treasury to mark its own work, and I am sure that it would be perfectly happy in some contexts to do so, but what we really need is to get Parliament to do the work and to give us an answer that would satisfy us, including the hon. Lady.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gauke]

I will give way, to get the hon. Lady’s answer on VAT. Does she favour cutting it or not?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I was hoping to leave the Minister time to respond to some of the serious concerns that we have raised, but this complete fantasy-land account of the Government’s record on infrastructure investment has prompted me to jump to my feet. Will he confirm that his Government are investing less in infrastructure than was proposed under the Darling plan? They are investing 1.7% less in real terms over the course of this Parliament, and again in 2015-16. They are also borrowing more.

[Mr Gauke]

It is clear that the balance of our plan has focused much more on current spending, as compared with capital spending, than did the plans that we inherited.

I want to turn to the issue of HMRC, which the hon. Lady rightly raised. I can assure her that, as a consequence of the measures we are taking, HMRC’s yield is going up compared with what we inherited. By 2015-16, yield will have increased by approximately 70%, which represents a staggering increase in the performance of HMRC under this Government. Yes, staff numbers are falling but, when it comes to enforcement and compliance, staff numbers will be higher in 2015-16 than they were under the previous Government. We should not always focus on inputs; we should focus on outputs. The record on outputs is very good. If the hon. Lady wants to focus on inputs, however, she should be aware that the record of the previous Government involved the number of staff working in enforcement and compliance falling by 10,000. Under this Government, that number will be increasing.

I have run out of time, but I believe that the spending review is evidence of a Government who are prepared to take the difficult decisions that we need, and a Government who have economic credibility. The contrast with Labour could not be greater.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.