Age-related Tax Allowances

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and Kelvin Hopkins

Monday 9th September 2013 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) on securing the debate, which is somewhat belated, given that it was meant to take place many months ago. However, I commend him for his persistence in pursuing the matter and not letting it lie.

The measure was one of a number that I and my colleagues in the shadow Treasury team discussed at great length, and on which we pressed Ministers, during consideration in Committee of this and last year’s Finance Bill. We are therefore not debating a new issue, but I commend my hon. Friend for his passionate speech in which he highlighted the very real cost of living crisis faced by many pensioners and the situation in which the Government’s changes have left a number of pensioners.

The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) spoke in favour of tax simplification and discussed the perceived merits of the Government’s measure. She put forward an interesting argument of which there was much to commend but, despite that, I shall explain why we do not support the reforms and especially the way in which the Government have gone about bringing them into play.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Is it not the case that what is called tax simplification is sometimes simply a cover for making the tax system less progressive and therefore less advantageous to those who are less well off?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The Office of Tax Simplification expressed surprise at the way in which the measure was introduced, and I shall go on to quote from the office as I set out the reasons why we do not support the Government’s policy.

It might be helpful to recap what has happened. Until the beginning of this tax year, individuals aged 65 or over were entitled to receive an additional age-related allowance, with a further addition for those aged 75 and over. Since 1977 and what was known as the Rooker-Wise amendment, all income tax allowances had been required to increase in line with the retail prices index, unless Parliament specifically determined otherwise.

As we are all aware, in Budget 2012, it was announced that from 2013-14—from this April—the availability of those age-related personal allowances for income tax would be restricted. The allowance for people aged 65 or over was frozen, as was the allowance of £10,660 for those aged 75 or over. Additionally, people turning 65 on or after 6 April 2013 were not entitled to any age-related allowances at all, meaning that the general personal allowance was all that applied to them.

On the basis of the speed with which the changes were introduced and our opposition to them, we tabled an amendment to this year’s Finance Bill that called on the Government properly to consider the impact of the changes to the personal allowance system on the group of people who are affected. We put that proposal forward at a time of overwhelming opposition to the changes. A whole body of evidence showed that the impact on pensioners would be hugely detrimental. As my hon. Friend pointed out, this came at the same time as a tax cut for those earning more than £1 million, who the Government were handing an average tax cut of £100,000.

The e-petition that has led to the debate is testament to the measure’s impact on pensioners and their level of concern about it. I commend Arthur Streatfield and his valiant efforts in obtaining 114,488 signatures, meaning that the debate could be secured.

My hon. Friend quoted Dot Gibson, the general secretary of the National Pensioners Convention, when she gave her backing to Arthur Streatfield’s e-petition, but it is worth repeating what she said:

“Since the Budget announcement...we have been inundated by pensioners like Arthur who are outraged that the Chancellor is giving a tax cut to those earning over £150,000 whilst pensioners on little more than £11,000 are having their tax allowance frozen. There has been a lot of nonsense about pensioners having been cushioned from the austerity measures, but they’ve already seen cuts to their winter fuel allowance, a reduction of their state pension increase because it’s now linked to the…Consumer Price Index rather than the Retail Price Index, rationing of care services in the community, closure of day care centres, changes to disability benefits and caps on housing support…The Chancellor’s decision to freeze the age related tax allowance is really the last straw for pensioners who feel they are being asked to pay for the mistakes of the bankers and politicians.”

The Opposition agree, which was why we voted against the changes during the passage of last year’s Finance Bill. It is absolutely the wrong priority at the wrong time, and in the current economic climate, the Government should be prioritising ordinary families, ordinary pensioners, the young and the long-term unemployed, not millionaires.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

Again, it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm for those taking part in the debate and for those following it—the many pensioners who have called for the debate and who want to know—what consideration the Government have given to their position and to the fact that pensioners are suffering a cost of living crisis. The Government seem to be taking no account of that.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I think the point is that pensioners face extra costs in their lives. They often spend more time at home and need more heating in their homes, for example. Someone as far back as Winston Churchill recognised that, which was why he initiated the idea of a greater tax-free allowance for pensioners to help them with their additional living costs. That is the case that I made in my speech.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank my hon. Friend. The point that he and I make is that the concern about the Government’s change is the lack of notice that many pensioners have had of it. It has not been introduced gradually to give pensioners a chance to readjust their savings plans or earnings plans; they have not been given time to adjust to the change. I will go on to say just what a shock it was to many pensioners, and to the Office of Tax Simplification itself, when the change came about, but it is worth reflecting first on the number of pensioners affected.

We are talking about 4.41 million people who are worse off in real terms, with an average loss of £83. Those are the Government’s own impact figures, but in addition The Daily Telegraph has estimated that many people could be £479 worse off as a consequence, or £511 if they are aged over 75. It could cost a couple nearly £1,000. Those are not insignificant numbers for pensioners who are watching their household bills rise month on month. They are now watching their income diminish as a result of these changes.

It is also helpful to consider region by region the number of constituents affected by the changes. Many MPs have been contacted by constituents who are most aggrieved by the changes and, in particular, by the lack of notice that they were given of them. We know from written answers that the Minister was unable to identify exactly how many people would be affected by the change in the age-related allowance—the granny tax, as it has been dubbed, or indeed the granddad tax, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North rightly pointed out. However, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has been able to produce figures for the number of people over 65 paying income tax by region. The House of Commons Library sensibly suggested that that could be used as a proxy to estimate the number of people in each region affected by the freeze, so we know that 170,000 of those affected live in the north-east, 480,000 in the north-west, 340,000 in Yorkshire and Humber, 320,000 in the east midlands, 370,000 in the west midlands, 450,000 in the east of England, 410,000 in London, 710,000 in the south-east, 460,000 in the south-west, 240,000 in Wales, 370,000 in Scotland and 90,000 in Northern Ireland. Those figures are something for everyone to consider when we think about the number of constituents in our own areas who are affected and the sheer volume of engaged voters up and down the country who, as my hon. Friend pointed out, will not forget these changes quickly.

However, the critical group of people whom we should be seriously concerned about are those reaching their 65th birthday this year. I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on whether the Treasury has undertaken any research to try to understand the true impact of the changes on that group, because it is a group of approximately 360,000 people who will be roughly £322 a year worse off as a result of being excluded from the age-related allowance. For that group, the incredibly short notice of the change has been completely unacceptable. We are talking about people who are very close to retirement age and have little chance to change their plans.

As I mentioned, at the time of the 2011 autumn statement the Chancellor made this categorical commitment:

“To ensure employers and older people do not lose out, for the duration of this Parliament the annual increases in the employer NICs threshold, and the age related allowance and other thresholds for older people, will be over-indexed compared to the CPI, and will increase by the equivalent of the RPI.”

Let me repeat that:

“To ensure...older people do not lose out, for the duration of this Parliament the annual increases in the...age related allowance....will be over-indexed compared to the CPI, and will increase by the equivalent of the RPI.”

And when was that statement made? It was made just four months before Budget 2012, when the Chancellor decided not to “over-index” the age-related allowance and not even to increase it by the RPI, but to freeze it permanently for those born before 6 April 1948 and scrap it altogether for those born on or after that date.

It was dressed up as a “simplification” measure. It was justified on the back of the Office of Tax Simplification’s interim “Review of pensioners’ taxation”. What the Chancellor did not mention at all in the statement was that that review stated:

“We would stress...that the OTS has not reached any conclusions as to the best way forward with age-related allowances, nor have we formulated detailed recommendations”.

Indeed, in his evidence on the 2012 Budget to the Select Committee on the Treasury, the director of the Office of Tax Simplification, John Whiting, commented:

“I was surprised that it was taken forward so quickly...The context is that we undertook to do a two-stage review of pensioner taxation. The first would document the problems and codify all the problems...Stage two was to go ahead and look at them and try to work out what might be the best way forward.”

Of course, we know why the Chancellor did not want to wait for the final OTS report, through which he could have properly understood the impact of the changes on current pensioners and particularly on those who are turning 65 this year. He needed a soft target for a tax grab to help to fund his indefensible tax cut for millionaires. This is a measure dressed up as tax simplification that will actually increase revenue to the Government by £360 million in 2013-14. That will rise to £1.25 billion in 2016-17.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

rose—

[Kelvin Hopkins]

rose—

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will give way to the hon. Lady and then to my hon. Friend.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North and then deal with both points.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I hope my hon. Friend will agree that the Government would do rather better to look at the £84 billion profit that Vodafone has made on the sale of assets. By careful avoidance measures, it is avoiding billions in taxation. The Government would do better to look at that rather than at pensions.

[Catherine McKinnell]

We run the risk of digressing into a broader debate on tax avoidance and taxation rates, and it would be an injustice to the pensioners who are affected by the change in the age-related allowances to allow that. However, I take on board both points that were made in those interventions. My hon. Friend’s was about the crucial measures the Government need to take to clamp down on tax avoidance and evasion, close the tax gap and ensure that all revenue due to the Exchequer is brought in. The Minister and I regularly debate those issues. I also take on board what the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal said. I appreciate her point, but I dispute her analysis. She should look at the figures for the shift in income that took place to forestall and then avoid the 50p tax rate, and then at the bumper tax take as soon as the rate dropped to 45p; those who are savvy, and in a position to do so, are able to take advantage of the reduction.

Like so many of the Government’s decisions, the change is completely arbitrary. It is likely that this year somebody celebrated their 65th birthday on 5 April, retaining their age-related allowance, while somebody down the street born the very next day lost their allowance and as a result will find themselves substantially worse off for the remainder of their retirement. That was why the Opposition voted against the measure in last year’s Finance Bill and tabled an amendment calling on the Government to conduct a proper review of the impact of the change on that group of people in particular and on pensioners in general. Some people did not have the common sense or ability to ensure that they were born before 5 April 1948, and as a consequence of that total lack of foresight, they will be much worse off for the remainder of their retirement. That is a deeply unsatisfactory situation for the people who prompted the debate today, on whose behalf we speak.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and Kelvin Hopkins

Wednesday 17th April 2013 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Primarolo. I rise to speak in support of the Opposition amendments to clauses 203 to 212, which relate to the Government’s proposed general anti-abuse rule and the wider issue of corporate tax avoidance and its impact. I stress “abuse” because people use the terms “avoidance” and “abuse” interchangeably. However, we need to be clear that this is about an anti-abuse rule, rather than a general anti-avoidance rule.

Before turning to the clauses and our amendments, I want to put on the record our deep concern at the delay in the publication of the final guidance notes on how the general anti-abuse rule, or GAAR, will operate. The guidance was initially expected to be published alongside the Finance Bill on 28 March but was published only on Monday—two hours before Second Reading and just two days before we consider the GAAR-related clauses in the Bill this evening. It is clearly important that the recently formed GAAR advisory panel sought to get the guidance right and to amend and improve it appropriately. That is a view backed up by the Economic Affairs Committee in the other place, whose report last month on the draft Finance Bill stated:

“Our witnesses stressed the importance of the guidance from HMRC and the Advisory Panel on how the GAAR would apply so as to minimise uncertainty. We wholly agree. We recognise that progress is being made in drafting this guidance but are concerned that our witnesses felt it was far from acceptable as it stands.”

We therefore welcome the fact that amendments were made, but surely it is vital that Members have sufficient time properly to consider the final guidance, in advance of the GAAR provisions being considered in this House. The Treasury Committee has already raised directly with the Chancellor the question of Members’ ability properly to scrutinise the Bill within the timetable provided by the Government. It described it as

“an important issue of principle going to the heart of Treasury Ministers’ accountability to Parliament.”

I am therefore keen to put my deep concerns about this issue on the record. Sufficient time has not been provided for Members to consider the guidance and any amendments required to the primary legislation as a result.

At a time when living standards are being squeezed, Government borrowing is up, growth forecasts have been downgraded again, the public services upon which people rely are being cut or threatened across the country, and ordinary people are being asked to pay the price of the Chancellor’s economic failure, there is understandable anger about the unfairness and injustice of people working hard and paying their fair share of taxes, while they hear almost daily about the complex lengths to which a small but significant number of multinational corporations will go in order not to do so.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will have noticed that The Times reported today that the International Monetary Fund is so worried about the direction of Government economic policy that it fears for the long-term future of our economy. The Government are wrong and they have to change.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised that issue and reiterated the difficulty the Chancellor faces in pursuing, with such a one-direction approach, his clearly failing economic policies. He refuses to change course, even though the economy clearly shows that his approach is not working, as does the impact on ordinary people up and down the country. Instead, he is ploughing on for political reasons—because he simply cannot lose face by changing direction.

Let me return to the principal issue. It is right to raise the impact of tax avoidance on public services, which are suffering as a result of the tax gap.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Richard Murphy, in particular, has estimated that the tax gap is at least £120 billion and according to some estimates it is much larger than that. The official figures really show only a fraction of the truth.

[Catherine McKinnell]

There are varying views on the tax gap and how it is calculated. Clearly, it is difficult to calculate accurately, because we are effectively calculating something that does not exist. It is tax that HMRC has been unable to collect, so it will always be an estimate. I use the HMRC figure because it is the minimum—it is what it believes and it is a conservative estimate. The Tax Justice Network calculates the gap at £120 billion. Whatever the actual sum, the GAAR and the £60 million and £85 million that it is intended to bring in are simply a drop in the ocean, and many people have described it as that. It is tinkering around the edges of what is legal.

There has been extensive discussion about the proposed GAAR’s strengths and weaknesses, both in this House and elsewhere. I acknowledge that the Government have taken steps in response to consultation submissions to reduce some of the ambiguity of the earlier GAAR proposals. For example, they have attempted to define the so-called “double reasonableness test” so that we can have a better understanding of how to assess, in HMRC’s words, whether arrangements can

“reasonably be regarded as a reasonable course of action”.

Again, the word “reasonable” is highly subjective and open to interpretation. Many, including the Opposition, still believe that the GAAR is too narrow and that, as it tackles only the most egregious schemes, cannot be regarded as general at all.

Other concerns have been raised about the chair, the panel and the manner in which they will be appointed. The chair has been appointed and will appoint his panel, and it is they who will interpret what they believe to be reasonable. What a tax expert considers to be reasonable might be regarded differently in the eyes of a member of the public. Indeed, many tax experts will differ on what they believe to be reasonable tax planning, as opposed to something egregious that would fall under the GAAR. The concern is that the GAAR is so narrow in tackling only the most egregious schemes that it could hardly be considered general at all and should perhaps be called the AAR instead. As has been mentioned, it also risks tacitly legitimising any tax planning or avoidance that does not fall within its remit, making it even harder to tackle the avoidance problem. Those arguments should be seriously considered. The problem was neatly summed up by the former president of the Association of Revenue and Customs, Graham Black, who stated that the GAAR is a

“Trojan horse, which suggests tough action whilst actually facilitating avoidance.”

A further issue, raised by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, is the international legality of the GAAR in relation to the UK’s double tax treaties, particularly with about 100 non-OECD countries where the GAAR could effectively and unilaterally override the UK’s international obligations. There remain serious concerns that there is no specific penalty regime for the GAAR, so it would be helpful if the Minister, in addition to addressing the concerns I have already set out, could tell us how he intends to ensure that this GAAR is not just a toothless tiger.

I am keen to emphasise that we are willing to support the Government in introducing the GAAR, but for the reasons I outlined we are not convinced that this version is up to the job. One of our key concerns should surely be the fact that there appear to be no arrangements to monitor, determine or measure whether the GAAR is actually working as intended or whether, as we fear, it fails in its aims. HMRC’s recently updated impact note on the GAAR simply states:

“Consideration will be given to evaluating how effective the GAAR has been at discouraging as well as stopping abusive avoidance schemes.”

However, the Select Committee on Economic Affairs in the other place made a clear recommendation for an independent post-implementation review after five years. The Committee stated:

“It would be for consideration whether such a requirement should be built into the legislation, or failing that, a firm Ministerial commitment should be made in the House of Commons at the time the legislation is being considered.”

That time is now, I suggest to the Minister.

Like the Association of Accounting Technicians, the Opposition agree that there should be such a requirement, but like the Chartered Institute of Taxation we believe the review should take place before the five years suggested by the Economic Affairs Committee. Given the seriousness of the problem, the ever-increasing pressure on the Government’s finances and the result of the Chancellor’s failing economic plan, we believe we need an earlier review of the success or otherwise of the Government’s key policy for tackling tax avoidance. Our amendment 8 proposes a maximum two-year gap between Royal Assent to the Bill and the review. I look forward to hearing from the Minister whether he is prepared to commit to such a review, particularly in light of the concerns expressed at the beginning of my submission about the lack of time afforded by the Government’s publishing the guidance so late for proper scrutiny of the legislation.

Perhaps the key concern about the GAAR relates not to its implementation but to the Government’s tendency to promote its provisions as some sort of panacea for dealing with the problem of tax avoidance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) raised that concern. I spoke earlier of the justifiable anger about the impact of the problem, particularly of corporate tax avoidance, both on the UK and on developing countries. In continuing to talk up the potential impact of the GAAR, the Government are failing to communicate that it will not deal with many of the issues that members of the public are concerned about. Indeed, the Economic Affairs Committee, which provided valuable scrutiny of the Bill and the GAAR, stated in its report that

“Ministers should make every effort to explain the aims of the GAAR and the reasons why it cannot apply in many of the ways public opinion would prefer, so that unrealistic expectations are banished.”

The Chartered Institute of Taxation commented:

“The Government should be careful not to overstate the effects of the GAAR, raising expectations which will later be disappointed. Many of the examples of ‘tax dodging’ highlighted by the media and campaigners would not be caught by the GAAR. It is important to be clear from the outset what the GAAR will, and will not, achieve.”

The ICAEW stated that

“the GAAR is aimed at countering abusive arrangements and will not fix everything. There remains also uncertainty as to what it will and will not catch.”

The Association of Accounting Technicians remarked:

“We do not see the GAAR as a bulwark against the perceived and real abuse of the UK tax system by multinational corporations. The only way to tackle the growing concern that the UK and many Governments have is by bringing international law up to date, making it fit-for-purpose for the 21st century…The AAT supports Lord MacGregor (Chair of the Economic Affairs Committee) in his demand that the Government make it clear to the public that the GAAR is ‘narrowly focused’ and will not meet ‘public expectations’ of bigger levies on international firms.”

The impact note supports that view in terms of the revenue that the Government expect from the measure.

The Opposition agree with all those comments. Indeed, we think the Government should go further on this critical and pressing issue, which is why we have tabled further amendments. The time for tough talk on tax avoidance is over. We and particularly the developing world need real concrete action now.

Earlier, I outlined the impact of tax avoidance on ordinary UK taxpayers and good British businesses who are paying their fair share but see others going to great lengths to avoid doing so—thus contributing to the tax gap and undermining a level playing field for firms. I briefly touched on the devastating impact of tax avoidance overseas, and I welcome the Chancellor’s confirmation in this year’s Budget that he intends to build on Labour’s legacy by meeting the target of spending 0.7% of gross national income on overseas aid. However, we know that aid alone will not be enough.

Developing countries desperately need to be able to raise more tax revenues to invest in reducing hunger and becoming more self-reliant. Aggressive tax avoidance activity is so significantly reducing the ability of developing country Governments to tackle issues such as hunger, and to invest in the vital infrastructure that we all take for granted, that the OECD estimates those countries lose three times more to tax havens than they receive in aid each year.