Loan Charge

Dean Russell Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith]

That is a point on which we have consensus. It is outrageous that promoters have not been pursued. The all-party parliamentary group has considered and taken evidence on that, and I will certainly continue to push that point in this debate and for the weeks, months and years ahead, in trying to get justice for all the victims of the loan charge and holding to account those who gave that advice, who, I suggest, knew what they were doing.

[Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) for securing the debate. Does my hon. Friend agree that protecting the coffers of the state should never take precedence over protecting the lives of our constituents?

[Greg Smith]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly powerful point with which I entirely agree. Part of the ask of this debate and of the all-party parliamentary group on the loan charge and taxpayer fairness is a fair settlement that people can actually afford to pay; that takes into account—dare I say it—reality; and that understands what people actually earn and that they acted in good faith and took the professional advice that I mentioned a few moments ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

May I join the congratulations to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) on securing this important debate? This is why Parliament exists: we are here to seek redress of grievance from an overmighty Executive who abuse their power. This is a classic example of the state abusing its power through aggressive tax collection.

Why is it that in the Bible the tax collector is seen as the villain on almost every occasion the tax collector is referred to? It is because the tax collector seeks to extract more than is by law allowed. In our system, it has always been the case that the job of the tax collector is to raise the tax set out by Parliament—not a penny more, nor a penny less. It is not for the tax collector to squeeze out extra from people if that was not intended.

We know from this discussion that HMRC did not think there was anything wrong with these schemes early on. How do we know that? As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, it employed people using these schemes. So we are saying either that HMRC is so incompetent that it has no idea about the basis on which it is employing people, or that actually, because it saved some money, it thought these schemes were licit. The other thing we know is that constituents of ours sent in tax returns acknowledging that they were using these schemes, and HMRC did not question them.

Then, in a panic, worried about the tax receipts that were coming in—2010 is an important date when tax receipts were very low and the country had an enormous deficit—a squeeze gets put on, and that squeeze becomes retrospective. But retrospective legislation is basically unconstitutional except in extraordinary circumstances. Whenever there is any retrospective part of legislation, it has to be specifically approved and cleared by the Attorney General before it can be brought before the House. Why is that? It is to safeguard the constitutional right that people know the basis of the law under which they are operating. That is surely proper, because with retrospective legislation people who have behaved properly and honestly and followed the law that Parliament had passed suddenly find that they had not. That is entirely unfair and unreasonable, and it could criminalise any of us for actions we committed years ago.

[Dean Russell]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in all these scandals, the presumption of innocent until proven guilty has been turned on its head, and we see the presumption of guilt and one being unable to prove one’s innocence? To use a biblical analogy, this is not so much David versus Goliath; it is David versus an army of Goliaths, and David has had the slingshot taken away from him.

[Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. HMRC, through the amalgamation of the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, has extraordinary powers. Customs and Excise historically maintained extraordinary prerogative powers—much greater, actually, than those of the Inland Revenue—and the coming together of those two bodies has brought a more aggressive culture to our tax system. It is a culture that assumes that taxpayers, following the law as they understand it and indeed as HMRC understood it, may be doing something wrong. That is a bad principle under which to operate. Members need, as we are, to look after the interests of constituents who are being affected in that way.

We need to allow people to know that their tax affairs are cleared after an inquiry has not been opened. That is set out: there is a 12-month period in which tax returns remain open and a seven-year period under which people have to keep records, and yet we have passed retrospective legislation that overturns all of that. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) was absolutely right that those of us who were here in 2017 should be appalled that this got through without being noticed and without being stopped. What he said to the Minister was absolutely right: we should look carefully at the ministerial responses.

HMRC is in the odd situation of being a non-ministerial Department. It is not properly accountable. With most Departments, the Minister says “Go” and—at least theoretically—they goeth. With HMRC, its independence is such that it can effectively ignore ministerial control. But that should work two ways. If the Minister cannot control HMRC, he should not read out the rubbish that it provides for him to read out from the Dispatch Box, and he should be well aware of the warnings given of Ministers who have either been willing to read out things that turn out in future to be untrue, or not asked the right questions.

I very much look forward to the speech by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), because he has the advantage of independence. Not having gone native by virtue of being in the Treasury, he can bring—I hope—an independent mind to this. Bearing in mind that there will be an election this year, and who knows what may happen in that and what responsibilities may fall upon his shoulders, it is really important to know that the Opposition are on the side of proper constitutional practice.

The whole point of our system is that we come here, as we have done since the 13th century, to seek redress of grievance for our constituents when they are badly treated. This is a classic example, and Governments are absolutely appalling at answering it. People have mentioned the Post Office, but it is not just that; it is Hillsborough and infected blood. For some strange reason, Governments have a desire to defend the mistakes of long since past Administrations, and they do that to the disadvantage of constituents today. I hope that on this occasion it will not happen, or at least it will not continue to happen.

There is an ability to set it right, and there is an ability for the House to do more. If HMRC is not producing documents, we have things up our sleeves that the House can do to continue to exert pressure—the Backbench Business Committee can allow Humble Address motions to be tabled—but it would be so much better if the Minister at the Dispatch Box, who is one of the most able and intelligent Ministers in this current Administration, were to grasp this and deal with it to save our constituents from further pain—and, frankly, put HMRC in its box.