Loan Charge

David Davis Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

In the interests of time I will try not to repeat all the self-evident truths that have been stated throughout this debate. The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made a characteristically fluent exposition of the case. Everyone, from him through to my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg), reiterated essentially the same point: all of a sudden, in the last few weeks, the public have become aware that huge state or quasi-state organisations put their own interests ahead of the interests of the public and, unfortunately, that is not abnormal behaviour. The right hon. Member for East Antrim quite rightly characterised that as being repeated in a high-handed and insensitive way by HMRC but, frankly, I think he understated the point.

Why do I think that? Because HMRC has referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct over those 10 suicides and some other attempted suicides and self-harm. When dealing with Government Departments, that is as close as we get to a confession. Those at HMRC know they have done wrong, and they have known it for some time. They have known that the consequences of this have led to death and enormous harm to people, yet they have continued to do the same thing over and again. How on earth do they justify that when they look at themselves in the mirror?

The only thing I can come up with is that HMRC thinks this is a deterrent. Clearly, it will not raise that much money—three quarters of people will go bankrupt —so maybe it is a deterrent. If it is, that brings us to the next question that the right hon. Member for East Antrim raised: why does it not go after the promoters? The promoters exacted 18% to 20% of the incomes of these people in carrying out this scheme, so there is a large sum of money there—someone said hundreds of millions. It may even be that the victims of the scheme—that is the right word—thought that was the tax deduction, because it was of that order of magnitude. Why has HMRC not done that? We know that many of the organisations using those promoters and contractors were state organisations, including HMRC itself. That might be a reason—it does not want to embarrass itself. It might be because of that that it is complicit in covert advice to those contractors at the beginning. It is entirely possible that HMRC approved it, and those documents are hidden away in HMRC.

What is the answer? My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) was not quite right in saying that HMRC is completely protected. There is one body—the Public Accounts Committee—that can get at this. One of the things that should come out of this debate is that the Public Accounts Committee should look at the documents —not the numbers—associated with those early contracts and see why they were done. That would be one way to get past the assertion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) that we cannot deliver a practical outcome. That is one practical outcome that we can deliver.

The second practical outcome we can deliver among ourselves is to address the fact that this is retrospective taxation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset rightly pointed out, our country does not believe that people who undertake behaviour that is not illegal at one point in time should be prosecuted if it becomes illegal in future. That applies in spades to taxes.

One of the things I wanted to do early on in our collective campaign was to move a motion in the House at the beginning of the Budget, under the general motion that is normally put, explicitly to ban retrospective taxation. Let us guess what happened: since then, the Treasury has not moved a general motion. We always get narrow finance motions, which makes it difficult to change anything. I wrote to the Procedure Committee, which I gather is still concerned about this, to ask it to request the return of the general motion at the beginning of the Budget. Then, we could actually put it to the House. Back in those days, we probably did not have the 100-plus supporters that we now have. Today, we could probably carry that motion. I ask everyone taking part in this debate to support that—I might write around and ask everyone—and to write to the Procedure Committee to try to get that corrected. We can use our right of initiative, which we do not have much of anymore, to stop this explicitly.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I agree entirely on the amendment of the law resolution. In fact, whenever I have spoken on a Finance Bill since it stopped being common practice to use it, I have said that we should have an amendment of the law resolution. I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says about the Procedure Committee. As a member of the Committee, I can tell him that we have looked at this but, ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Government to make the change—they need to table the amendment of the law resolution. The previous Chancellor was clear that it was a small, technical change that he would not make.

[Sir David Davis]

Forgive me, but I have been here a long time. The Procedure Committee can do it—it can put it to the House and seek a Back-Bench motion. Guess what? We can move Back-Bench motions that instruct the Government. Some may remember that we did it on prisoner votes, and we won that day. It is about time that we exerted our own rights in this House on this matter.

The last point I want to make is that this whole thing was, if not precipitated, then certainly made worse by the 1999 move by the Government with what is now known as IR35. The complex rules associated with the IR35 triggered part of this behaviour pattern. What is interesting is that the behaviour of HMRC on IR35 pretty much mirrors its behaviour on the loan charge.

A large number of people out there, one of whom is in the Gallery today, have been oppressed by HMRC, frankly. They have an argument over money, let us say £70,000. They win in the first tribunal, so HMRC appeals. They win in the upper tribunal, so HMRC appeals again and takes them to court. The court, of course, then sends them back to the beginning and they do it again.

The House will remember a previous Backbench Business debate when we started the action against SLAPPs—strategic lawsuits against public participation—in which oligarchs use their huge financial power to destroy people. What is HMRC doing? Precisely the same thing. The Government are now moving to stop oligarchs doing what they do themselves, so we need to look at that too. IR35 is a disgrace. When a state organisation with infinite resources—actually, your tax money and mine—uses that power to overrule and reduce the ability of ordinary citizens to protect themselves, I am afraid it is behaving in a way similar to how countries behind the iron curtain used to behave.

[Greg Smith]

My right hon. Friend’s powers of forensic analysis are second to none, but does he agree that it is actually slightly worse than that? He is entirely right in what he says, but there are also cases, particularly for those affected by the loan charge, where people have allowed themselves, against their better instincts and judgment, to make a false confession of guilt. They have gone through the process and ended up having to pay an extortionate amount of money and think the matter settled; then, HMRC has come back and gone after even more.

[Sir David Davis]

Yes, my hon. Friend is right. I am afraid that one of the characteristics of miscarriages of justice—I have forgotten who raised this point earlier, so please forgive me for not referencing them—is that the victim at the beginning is probably the most unpopular person in society. They are thought to be guilty and may even doubt themselves over whether they have made a mistake. These people, by and large, have been compelled to do what we are talking about. They have been offered a job on these terms only, so they have had no choice, but then they think, “Well, maybe I should have known.” Then, like the sub-postmasters, they are persuaded by the people dealing with them that they are the only one.

Until our campaign started, all these people felt that they were the only one, or one of a few nasty tax evaders—not tax avoiders—so they gave in. Of course, it is like the Gestapo: confession never saves you; it is a step to execution. That is how it works, I am afraid. That is true of all big organisations full of people who are well-intentioned, but who defend the institution. That is why, answering my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, it goes on through Government after Government after Government. It is not the Ministers who do this, but the members of the institution.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I get all of that and my right hon. Friend is right, but there is a peculiarity about HMRC, with its powers and lack of accountability. It does not publish accounts, and Ministers come and go; they do not really run that Department. That really is the issue. Bad as it might be elsewhere, it is astonishingly bad now because of HMRC’s behaviour.

[Sir David Davis]

My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset listed a few of the other cases, from Hillsborough onwards, so it does come back to that. Even the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) used to run, has its own police force, in effect, and its own prosecutors. That is one of the clues. This will come back time and again with HMRC and others. He is right that we need to hold this organisation to account. It serves the people, not the Government of the day. This Parliament is the institution that serves the people and, starting with the Public Accounts Committee, we should be holding HMRC to account, but there are many others who should get involved.

I have given a completely different speech from the one I intended to give, because everybody else said everything before I rose, but I will finish with a point I certainly wanted to make. The BBC once referred to me as an old war horse, so I will give the Minister some old war horse advice, having been there once or twice myself. One of the lessons of the last few weeks is that Ministers—junior Ministers in particular—are very easily led to give dead bat answers in the Chamber. They are the answers handed to them by their officials, and they have no other answers to give, unless they want to end their career on the spot—I have done that twice, but never mind. This is not about his answers today, but the simple truth is that unless he wants to be seen in the same light as Ministers in the past—maybe he wants to be a future leader of the Liberal Democrats—he needs to go back to his Department and say, “I want to see the truth. Here are the things you’ve done. Why did you not tell the House of Lords why you are not pursuing the promoters of these schemes? Why did you tell people you only go for half their disposable income when you’re not doing that?” Get the answers, Minister. Then, when you next come back to the Chamber—and you will have to come back to the Chamber again—you can give us the truth.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Like everyone else in the Chamber today, I have constituents who have been affected in a way that is incredibly distressing, so I understand completely the howls of outrage sounding across the House today. I want to deal with process, though.

Some hon. Members here took part in the debate in 2018. I would like people to read the speech made in that debate by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown). I was the shadow Chancellor then, and she was in my shadow Treasury team. Speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, she set out exactly case after case, as hon. Members have done today, but there was one additional case we drew on which has not been mentioned today—a case in which, because of cuts to local councils and elsewhere, staff had been laid off and then rehired on this basis by public bodies, which was particularly shocking.

Let me read the ministerial response that was given then, because I think we should learn from it. The then Economic Secretary said:

“Although…I have tremendous sympathy for those facing large tax bills, it is unfair to let people get away with not paying the tax they owe. There is support for people who have used the schemes and now find themselves in difficult situations, which require those affected to approach HMRC and bring the matter to a close.”—[Official Report, 20 November 2018; Vol. 649, c. 295WH.]

That was the ministerial response. I do not think we can tolerate a similar ministerial response today, because that led to immense human suffering, including, as some have said, some people losing their lives. Many of them did approach HMRC and they did try to negotiate deals, but there was no element of clemency and no understanding of the individual plight of those people. As a result, many of our constituents suffered badly.

I just want to move on and try to get some resolution. I hope that we and the Government can agree today on review. That review should be immediate and time-limited in months, not years. It should be truly independent, with its independence assured by the victims. It should propose a specific range of resolutions, which will have to include some element of compensation for what people have suffered. The review should look at where the compensation should come from. I think it should come not from from other taxpayers, but from a levy on those who promoted the schemes, and perhaps some elements of the finance and accountancy sector that were involved up to their necks, to be frank. That is my first point.

I also think that we need to review our own role in this, and in what has happened over time. I agree with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) that not only should the Procedure Committee examine the House’s role, but the Public Accounts Committee should look into how we have arrived at current situation.

Let me give two examples of the background to all this. HMRC has come in for considerable criticism today, and I agree with much of it. What I say now is not in mitigation of HMRC’s role, but an attempt to gain some element of understanding of what has been going on there. HMRC is, rightly, under pressure from all of us, on both sides of the House, to tackle tax avoidance and evasion. Some of us have led campaigns over the last 20 years or so to try to get HMRC to work on that effectively, and I pay tribute to the Government for putting it under pressure to tackle the tax gap. They were the first Government to identify a tax gap of £38 billion, or whatever the amount is; I disagree with the figure, but at least we have a target to aim for. However, at the same time, over those 20 years, both parties have excelled in a Dutch auction to establish the extent to which HMRC’s staff levels can be cut.

I can understand a wish to reduce staffing, but there are better ways of doing it, and for a while the way in which it was done at HMRC was fairly brutal. That resulted in redundancy schemes whereby a whole wave, a generation, of expertise was lost, and it had an effect on the culture of HMRC. According to my understanding, HMRC looked for short cuts and a way of meeting the demand for it to tackle tax avoidance and evasion and the tax gap, and I think that this was one of the short cuts that it invented. In latter days, there would probably have been wiser heads in HMRC itself to suggest that this was not the route to go down because it would bring about more problems than solutions. However, a culture of secrecy and protectionism has developed in HMRC, and we need to understand that if we are to tackle this properly as an institutional failing.

Secondly, we need to look at the role that the House played. I have been going back to the year 2017, and trying to remember what was happening in the House at that time. Some Members will recall that there was not a normal process for the Finance Bill, because the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who was then the Prime Minister, having assured us all that there would not be a general election—I think she assured us of that five times in the House—went for a walk in Wales, came back, and declared an election. So the finance measures were thrown into the wash-up procedure, which, as Members will know, means political parties sitting down to decide what measures are urgent and must be passed. It was agreed that the Finance Bill would go through in a single day, and as a result of that, this measure was introduced. I should like the Public Accounts Committee and others to look at how that process worked and how it did not work.

The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden made an extremely valid point, which we made about every Finance Bill, or Budget Bill, that came forward. When the Government introduced the “no amendment to law” procedure, that tied the hands of the House when it came to what it could open up, what debates it could have and what amendments it could table. That was introduced by—

[Sir David Davis]

Hammond.

[John McDonnell]

Yes, by Lord Hammond. I think it was almost unprecedented. As I say, it tied the hands of the House, even when it came to further investigating issues relating to the Budget and Finance Bills.

I also think that we need to look at the process whereby Ministers and Opposition are able to question impact assessments and how they are developed, as well as the independence of those assessments. I still find it problematic that impact assessments are prepared largely by the Department and the ministerial team that are promoting the legislation involved, rather than its being done independently. Had there been an independent impact assessment in this case, and time for a proper debate and for amendment as well, the House would probably not have agreed to take this course. When I look back, I think that the implications should have been drawn to the attention of the whole House. The impression given was that this would be focused on a small number of “hard case” tax avoiders or evaders, and their scheme promoters.

[Sir David Davis]

I agree with nearly everything that the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but why can we not address it now? Why can we not go back and put it right?

[John McDonnell]

The point I am making is about enabling us to do that. I hope that some of the lessons being learned are learned not just by the whole House but by the Government as well, whichever party is in power. As soon as we introduce measures to fetter the role of individual Members of the House or the House as a whole, we open up the opportunity for mistakes to be made, because policies are not tested effectively in democratic debate in this Chamber.

I welcome the fact that reviews are to happen, but believe they should happen as a matter of urgency, if for no other reason than because I do not want to be here again in a few years’ time—we are now in 2024, and I do not want to be here again in 2026, 2027 or 2028—and find that we are in the same situation as we were in 2019. I do not want to find that more people have suffered and, worryingly, that more people may not be with us as a result of this because they have taken their own lives.

There is an element of urgency about rectifying this issue, and doing it with compassion and, in many instances, with clemency. That will enable us to focus properly on tackling tax avoidance and evasion, and also the institutional arrangements that exist to enable that to happen. We need to have a thorough debate in the House about our regulatory mechanisms, especially with regard to the accountancy and finance sector.