Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Douglas Chapman Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th May 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)]

New clause 5 would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish an assessment of the impact of the Bill on the Government’s ability to meet their duties under the Climate Change Act 2008 and commitments under the 2015 Paris agreement. The UK Government need to walk the walk as well as talk the talk on climate change. We had an extremely successful conference of the parties in Glasgow in 2021. The UK Government COP President secured the historic inclusion of coal in the climate pact, even if that commitment was not quite as explicit as he originally wished.

Scotland is taking that very seriously. We have ambitious climate change targets to become a net zero greenhouse gas-emitting nation by 2045, with interim targets of 75% by 2030 and 90% by 2040. We are taking positive action to realise those goals. The UK Government’s action has stalled, however, and has not been helped by the series of changes of Prime Minister, each of whom has had a wholly different attitude to the urgency of climate change.

In reality, the UK Government talk about climate change when they are forced to do so, but they do not take the action required to meet their obligations. Is the Minister confident that the measures in the Bill will get targets back on track? In every single policy that comes from the UK Government and every piece of legislation enacted by this Parliament, the climate change impact should be evaluated, and this Bill is no exception. We should be leading from the front and considering the impact of each policy on the targets that have been set.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

On the case cited by the hon. Member for Ealing North, clearly we would like banks to enter into the public-spirited nature of the Help for Ukraine scheme and other refugee schemes. I will take that issue away and reflect on it with my ministerial compadre in the Treasury, the Economic Secretary, to see what we can do. Of course, the first port of call for anyone in that situation is their constituency MP. We are, I hope, good constituency MPs, and we can draw these matters to banks’ attention and can often get answers that our constituents sadly cannot, but I will take this matter away and mull it over.

The hon. Member for City of Chester mentioned other refugee schemes. I am not aware that the Afghan scheme has quite the same system of payments as the Ukrainian scheme, but I am happy to reflect on that issue. It is probably not a matter for this Bill, but I will think that one over.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 345 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 24 agreed to.

Clause 346

Abolition of the Office of Tax Simplification

[Douglas Chapman]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 346, page 264, line 31, at end insert—

“(9) This section shall not come into force until the Chancellor of the Exchequer has published—

(a) a response to the letter from the Chair of the House of Commons Treasury Committee, dated 2 March 2023, on the closure of the Office of Tax Simplification, and

(b) a statement of his assessment of the costs and benefits of abolishing it.”

This amendment would prevent the Office of Tax Simplification from being abolished until the Chancellor has replied to outstanding correspondence from the Treasury Committee on the subject, and published a cost/benefit analysis of the policy.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

New clause 1—Reports to Treasury Committee on measures to simplify tax system—

(1) The Treasury must report to the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons on steps taken by the Treasury and HMRC to simplify the tax system in the absence of the Office of Tax Simplification.

(2) Reports under this section must include information on steps to—

(a) simplify existing taxes, tax reliefs and allowances,

(b) simplify new taxes, tax reliefs and allowances,

(c) engage with stakeholders to understand needs for tax simplification,

(d) develop metrics to measure performance on tax simplification, and performance against those metrics.

(3) A report under this section must be sent to the Committee before the end of each calendar year after the year in which section 346 (abolition of the Office of Tax Simplification) comes into force.”

This new clause would require the Treasury to report annually to the Treasury Committee on tax simplification if the Office of Tax Simplification is abolished.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Chapman]

I am sure that Members gathered here agree on the importance of data gathering, impartial analysis and evidence-based decision making. We can make informed decisions only if the facts are laid out in front of us in black and white. It would seem wise, then, that data be gathered on the costs and benefits of doing away with the Office of Tax Simplification before a final decision is made.

I will also be so bold as to point out that the recommendation to abolish the OTS came from a rather short-lived and now infamous Chancellor in his ironically named growth plan Budget of September 2022. Suffice it to say that the growth plan went down like a lead balloon after weeks of market turbulence, with unprecedented condemnation from the International Monetary Fund. That is not to mention the important—indeed, massive—£60 billion fiscal hole left in its wake. The then Chancellor and his Prime Minister swiftly exited stage left before more damage was done to the economy, our global reputation and citizens’ livelihoods.

Interestingly, of the many gung-ho announcements made in that growth plan, abolition of the OTS is one of the few that has not been reversed. When it comes to gathering evidence and data for making evidence-led decisions, and listening to experts and a broad group of stakeholders on tax simplification, we still have a long way to go, if this still seems to the Government to be a wise decision. One such expert is George Crozier, head of external relations at the Association of Taxation Technicians and the Chartered Institute of Taxation. He has argued that the OTS achieved a significant amount during its 12 years of existence and, with greater ministerial support for its proposals, could have achieved much more. Mr Crozier and the CIOT argue that among the OTS’s achievements since it was established in 2010 are the abolition of more than 40 unnecessary tax reliefs that were “clogging up” the tax system, as well as

“useful reforms to employee expenses and inheritance tax reporting,”

which have all had a positive impact. In fact, the CIOT informs us that

“every Finance Act of the last decade has had measures in it which owe their genesis to the OTS, and which have made navigating the tax system easier for one group or another.”

Does the Minister not believe that is a good thing?

Importantly, the ATT believes that there are many benefits to maintaining independent advice to the Government on tax simplification; for example, the OTS drew directly and effectively on the skills and expertise of tax professionals, professional bodies and taxpayers when making its recommendations for simplification. The ATT believes that the OTS maintained that level of engagement only due to the trust and belief that the OTS would treat its comments and views impartially and fairly. The ATT’s concern is that without the perceived independence of the OTS, taxpayers and professionals will be more reluctant to come forward with relevant evidence and experience. Does the Minister not believe that relevant evidence and experience are good things?

If analysis leans in the direction of abolishing the OTS, it seems fair to back up calls from Mr Crozier and his colleagues to question the UK Government on how they will deliver the promise to embed tax simplification in the institutions of government. Will the Minister confirm that he will at least give the OTS a stay of execution until further evaluation is carried out, or will the OTS baby be thrown out with the bath water? In the run-up to an election, it may be popular with the public if the Government of the day were seen to be taking the thoughtful and sensible decision to retain the services of the OTS.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

New clause 1 is also part of this group. As a member of the Treasury Committee, which fairly collectively signed new clause 1, I will speak to the new clause, as well as to the Scottish National party amendment to clause 346.

It came out of the blue that the Office of Tax Simplification was to be abolished as part of the mini-Budget—the catastrophic event last September that created the worst of all events in the Treasury. Interesting times. As an ex-Treasury Minister, I can assure you, Mr Stringer, that boring times are the best; interesting times, when bond markets soar and pension funds teeter, are not the best. We were thrown into that situation with the mini-Budget, out of which came the sudden announcement that the Office of Tax Simplification would be abolished. The reason given for that abolition was that we would boost economic growth and simplify the tax system by having tax simplification in house. That is one of the more Orwellian reasons for abolishing something that I have heard. It was set up by a previous Conservative Chancellor, George Osborne; I can use his name because he is no longer a Member of this House and has gone on to other—I will not say better—things.

When the OTS was set up, the idea was to identify areas where complexities in the tax system for business and taxpayers could be reduced. We need only look at the thickness of this modest Bill to realise how complex financial legislation can be. This is the Finance (No. 2) Bill, and others will be along soon, I am sure. Yesterday, we had a hearing of the Treasury Committee on tax reliefs and cliff edges, and we were told that there were 1,180 tax reliefs in the system. Of them, 841 are structural, and 339 are non-structural, which apparently means that they are aimed at behaviour. That is a lot of tax reliefs. Every relief, whether for a good or a bad reason, creates a complexity. I am not arguing at all that tax systems should be completely simple—complexity is sometimes important and inherent to the way that a tax works—but as with all these things, it is possible to have too much of a good thing. It tends to go beyond complexity for a good reason and become complexity for complexity’s sake.

I do not know why—perhaps the Minister could enlighten us—it was suddenly decided that the Office of Tax Simplification was such a thorn in the side of the Treasury that it could be abolished forthwith without much notice, and that a job that has not really been done routinely in the Treasury could suddenly be done in house without any kind of preparation. When the Treasury Committee had staff from the Office of Tax Simplification give evidence in a hearing, they did not really know why it had been abolished, either. Nobody likes to be abolished. I cannot think that they were enamoured of the idea, but they were very diplomatic. They did not really have any confidence that the more systematic look at how taxes could be simplified over time would continue once the office had been abolished.

Could the Minister give us some insight as to why the abolition was announced? Why was it reconfirmed by the new Administration—one of the four that we have had in the last year—when they came into office that they would go ahead with the abolition? It is one of the few things that the previous Prime Minister and her Administration inaugurated that has survived the shake-up of the system.

The Institute for Government argues that the Office of Tax Simplification should not be abolished, but that if it is, it should be replaced with a body with a wider remit that can make extensive recommendations on tax administration beyond just simplification. It points to the utility of having an independent body that provides options for tax reform.

Our political structures are littered with huge, all-encompassing reviews, such as the Mirrlees review of the entire taxation system. They are always so controversial, but it is rare that their recommendations are implemented. Having a body that could undertake some of this work in smaller bites may help us to reduce the complexity of our system while not compromising on fairness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

That is a fair challenge. It is one that we will meet through the meetings that we are already having, and that I am personally having, with organisations to discuss simplification. Of course we will discuss other matters in the future as well, but that is the No. 1 issue I am raising with those organisations. Also, I am very lucky to be able to work in the Treasury with incredibly talented officials. They do not hold back from giving Ministers of any Government proper advice on the tax system and other parts of the economy, so through all of this—as well as mulling over how we are ourselves able to check the progress we are making, as I say—I am confident that we will be able to make real progress in this area.

[Douglas Chapman]

On that point, I think the Labour party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wallasey, was also alluding to the fact that it was that element of independence that really made the Office of Tax Simplification stand out from anything that can be provided in-house. That is the real danger of Government Departments, and Governments in general, marking their own homework. That is what it sounds very much like, and that is how it will be seen outside the bubble we inhabit here in Westminster. I sincerely ask the Minister to reconsider her stance and have a really long think about not making that decision just now, but instead doing a full evaluation of the benefits and value of the Office of Tax Simplification to see how it might be either enhanced or supported in future.

[The Chair]

Order. I remind Committee members of the point I made to the hon. Member for Blaydon earlier: interventions should be short. They are getting longer.

[The Chair]

In which case, I call the hon. Gentleman to respond to the debate, and ask him to tell me whether he wishes to push the amendment to a Division.

[Douglas Chapman]

I think that the overall message we have heard today—certainly from Opposition Members—is that the Office of Tax Simplification should be retained, as it provides a very important independent view of the very complicated and complex system of tax takes and tax reliefs throughout the United Kingdom. I am hoping that that position will win support, and I am prepared to push it to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Douglas Chapman]

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

Hopefully we can all get off to lunch quite soon. The UK Government may still be driving the big red Brexit blunder-bus towards the sunny uplands, merrily in denial of the catastrophic damage that leaving the EU has wrought on the country, but British citizens and businesses are in no doubt about the serious lack of any tangible benefits from Brexit. In reality, the UK Government may have got Brexit done, but unfortunately we all got done at the same time. Not a week goes past without a Brexit myth-busting news headline. This week, we discovered that one of the world’s largest car manufacturers believes that Brexit is a threat to our export business, and the sustainability of UK manufacturing options. Stellantis, which owns Vauxhall and Fiat, warned the Government to reverse Brexit, or it will have to close down its factories. Just today, Jaguar Land Rover described the Brexit deal as “unrealistic and counterproductive” for electric vehicle manufacturing.

The Minister mentioned all the fantastic innovation-based opportunities that she could see in the future, but those two companies join a chorus of other manufacturers in the UK that have advised the Government to look again at the Brexit trade deal. Brexit was sold to us as a chance to reduce red tape, to free us up from the so-called constraints of EU bureaucracy, and to negotiate bigger and better trade deals across the globe. Instead, it has freed us from success, growth, productivity and competitiveness—so quite the opposite. Brexit has meant that we are fighting a war on all fronts, with not a unicorn or rainbow in sight, and no sign of the much-promised £350 million a week for the NHS, or an end to stagnant wage growth, the crippling cost of living and the energy crisis in the UK.

That brings me to this important new clause on exiting the European Union—an attempt to pin down the UK Government, shine some light on the well-hidden Brexit benefits, and require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide us with proper information and analysis to back up the Government’s claims. We are asking the Chancellor to publish a report on which of the policies included in the Bill could not have been introduced while the UK was a member of the EU. We are also asking for that report to include an evaluation of the costs and benefits of each provision.

Here is the thing: the Government might believe in Brexit. They might be convinced of the benefits of it, alongside their Opposition colleagues on the Labour Benches, but no matter what myths are busted every week in the real world, it is people in the UK who are bearing the brunt. That is the thin end of the wedge for our constituents, who want to know whether the Brexit-induced or Brexit-exacerbated hardships they face day to day—the astronomical levels of food inflation, the difficulties with European travel, and the closure of their exporting businesses due to jams and chaos at Dover—has all been worth it. Really, has it all been worth it?

[Gareth Davies]

I am happy to respond to new clause 4. The Government are committed to taking full advantage of the opportunities arising from the UK’s exit from the European Union, and we will make the most of our Brexit freedoms. Indeed, we have already set in motion a number of measures that capture those freedoms, whether it is the VAT relief on women’s sanitary products, cutting VAT on the supply of energy-saving materials or, as we have heard, measures in this Bill to reform our alcohol duty system. None of that could have been implemented had we remained in the European Union, and we will go further over the course of the months and years ahead.

As those reforms develop, we will routinely publish the impacts that they have, in exactly the same way as we do now and always have. An additional report is not necessary. Information on all changes is available in the Budget documents and the tax information and impact notes, outlining those impacts. I therefore urge the Committee to reject the new clause.

[Douglas Chapman]

I thank the Minister for his response. I have no intention of pursuing this new clause any further, but I hope the Government have taken these views on board and, if those broad and sunlit uplands are still there in their heads, let us make them a reality. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank you, Mr Stringer, for your superb chairmanship of this Committee and Ms McVey for hers. I thank my ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford, who did very well on his first Bill Committee; it has been a pleasure. I thank all Back-Benchers for lively debates and their attention to these important matters, and those on the shadow Front Bench for their important contributions.

I thank the Doorkeepers—Monty—the Clerks and of course our Hansard reporters, who help to make our words look more polished than perhaps they are in real life. Of course I must also thank the Whips, who have an incredibly difficult job arranging such a huge piece of legislation and have done so with great skill—and I thank them for the wine gums.

Finally, I thank the massive team of officials, primarily in the Treasury, but also in other Government Departments. There is so much work that goes into preparing a Bill for Committee. This is such an important stage of its scrutiny, and we take it very seriously. I offer my sincere thanks to each and every one of the officials who have been kind enough to brief me and my hon. Friend.