Finance (No. 3) Bill

Ed Davey Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Main]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. There are many versions of that story. I have constituents who say that HMRC was made aware of these arrangements but no objection was raised until many years later. That has to be fundamentally wrong. What more due diligence can anyone do?

I will conclude, because I know the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton wishes to speak. The huge pressure and distress—even suicidal thoughts—that this measure has put in people’s minds is totally unacceptable. I say to the Minister: if we do nothing else tonight, can we accept new clause 26? There is a clear ambiguity in the law that applied at the time—perhaps clarity has been provided now. The fact that people cannot negotiate a reasonable settlement even though they acted in good faith at the time, and are being pursued to the point of the destruction of their careers, homes, family lives and marriages, is completely unacceptable. We clearly need a review, and I hope the Minister takes that on board and accepts new clause 26. If it is pressed to a vote, I shall vote for it.

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) for her passionate speech. I also thank the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), who chairs the Treasury Committee, and right hon. and hon. Members from across the House, who have campaigned as a Parliament against this measure and supported new clause 26. It is my wish to divide the House on the new clause if the Minister does not accept it.

Let me make it crystal clear from the start that I support the Treasury’s aim of closing tax loopholes and stopping tax avoidance. The introduction of loan charges in the Finance Act 2017 to stop future abuse was correct, and the review my new clause proposes would not seek to prevent the Treasury from stopping that abuse from the 2016 Budget announcement. Instead—somewhat inelegantly, due to the rules of Finance Bill debate—new clause 26 aims to focus the minds of Treasury Ministers on the gross unfairness of the way the 2017 Act went about closing an unacceptable tax loophole.

I believe that the review envisaged in the new clause would reveal the unfairness of the retrospective nature of the current loan charge legislation in two ways. First, it would show how that retrospective nature is even more severe than non-retrospective but backward-looking proceedings for the recovery of lost tax elsewhere in our tax legislation. Secondly, it would show that the test of reasonableness included in proposed new section 36A, if applied to the loan charge, would in fact prevent any retrospective tax collection from the loan charge.

Let me remind the House why the Treasury should, after the review, ditch the retrospective nature of this measure, delay April’s implementation and amend the charge so it focuses only on payments made after 2016. It is because the loan charge, as introduced, offends against the rule of law. It is the sort of taxation that led the barons to rebel against King John and gave birth to Magna Carta. It is simply not acceptable for a Government to introduce a law that makes illegal something someone did years ago, when that action was considered legal. That is a clear principle.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way— I realise time is short—and for tabling new clause 26, which I, too, support. Does he agree that it is unreasonable for people to be expected to have kept records going back 20 years when they were reassured at the time that the scheme was legitimate?

[Sir Edward Davey]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and I thank her for her support. Let us remember that these people—our constituents—were given professional tax advice and behaved in a way they thought was right and lawful at the time.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I fully support the right hon. Gentleman’s comments and will vote for new clause 26 if it is pressed to a Division. I wonder whether he will reflect briefly on my concern that some people who support the Government’s position have implied that, in seeking justice and fairness for our constituents, we in some way condone tax avoidance. In fact, the opposite is the case—we say that there should not be tax avoidance or evasion. The real culprits in this are not the individuals who were conned and duped by professionals into taking out these schemes and now face bankruptcy, but the firms that designed and sold them the schemes in the first place, some of which are still operating.

[Sir Edward Davey]

The hon. Gentleman is right on all the points he makes. When my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) tabled the early-day motion that got cross-party support when this campaign was getting going, those were exactly the points he made. We all condemn tax avoidance and support the Treasury, but this retrospective approach to taxation is simply unacceptable.

[Crispin Blunt]

I congratulate hon. Members and hon. Friends on their speeches and wholly agree with them. It is grossly unfair that one of my constituents, a contractor between 2004 and 2006, is expected to repay tax from this period. It goes against the whole principle of fairness and surely would not survive any challenge in the European Court of Human Rights.

[Sir Edward Davey]

Indeed. HMRC knew about these tax schemes for years and took no action. They were widely used—as we have heard, right hon. and hon. Members from around the House have constituents affected—and widely advertised and yet were ignored by the tax authorities. People could only take some public sector positions if they agreed to be paid via these schemes, and it emerged ahead of the Westminster Hall debate that even some HMRC contractors were paid through such a scheme.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for tabling the new clause. I found HMRC’s answers to the Treasury Committee wholly unsatisfactory. There remain serious questions to be asked of the promoters of these schemes, of the employers, including public sector employers, who promoted them to contractors, and also of HMRC. If people were given tax advice and followed it, and if HMRC was aware of these schemes but did not take action in any previous tax year, how on earth could any reasonable person have concluded that they were doing anything wrong?

[Sir Edward Davey]

I totally agree, and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Edward Davey]

I cannot resist.

[Sir William Cash]

It is not often that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, as he knows, but I strongly agree with him on this issue. Retrospective legislation is bad in principle. This is an unjust provision, unreasonable and unfair, and I urge the Government to take note of the arguments put forward.

[Sir Edward Davey]

Having taken that wonderful intervention, I bring it to the House’s attention that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) has signed my new clause. It is bringing the House together at a time when elsewhere it is divided.

I end on what this loan charge and its retrospective nature have meant for our constituents. It has caused misery. It has affected people’s lives, their health, their families. It has caused gross misery. Some people believe they will have to go bankrupt if they are forced to pay, or that they might lose their homes, and that is why the House is united against this retrospective action. I really hope that the Minister will get to his feet, accept the new clause, go ahead with the review and bring it back before the end of the tax year, so that the House can see it and vote on it.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 2. I was staggered to learn that entrepreneurs’ relief costs the Treasury an estimated £2.7 billion, and this to allow people selling companies worth up to £10 million to keep half the money they would otherwise pay in capital gains tax.

I was even more surprised to learn that this tax relief was concentrated among a few very wealthy individuals, with 6,000 people making gains of over £1 million and averaging £450,000 in tax relief each. This relief is only benefiting the very wealthy and should be reviewed as to its effectiveness. If it is scrapped, the £2.7 billion could be used to fund schools buckling under the pressure of funding cuts and provide huge investment in special educational needs and children and adolescent mental health needs. It could also go some way to funding children’s services and social care in local authorities and policing.

This is not the only area where the Government are giving away money that could otherwise be put to better use. Under amendment 22, in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), the Government are being asked to review the expected effects on public health of the changes made to the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979. The Alcohol Health Alliance has stated that the Government’s own figures show that alcohol duty cuts from 2013-14 have cost the Treasury £4 billion, which is the equivalent yearly cost of employing over 100,000 teachers. The figure is expected to rise to £9.1 billion by 2024. Considering the pressures on budgets as a result of austerity, that is not an insignificant amount.

The freeze on duty on beer, spirits and cider for 12 months from February 2019 is in effect a cut, as it is not keeping in line with inflation. Indeed, it has not done so for six of the last seven years. Cheap alcohol has a tremendous effect in causing damage to people’s health, the economy and wider society. Alcohol is the leading risk factor in respect of the deaths of people aged 15 to 49. In England alone, there are more than 1 million hospital admissions and 24,000 deaths related to alcohol every year. That is a clearly an impact that the Government need to consider when they set duties on beer, spirits and cider. Cuts in alcohol duty have a double effect. They reduce revenue for the Treasury, which in turn reduces the amount of funding for the NHS, while simultaneously increasing demand and costs in the NHS by encouraging the consumption of cheap alcohol. I therefore ask the Government to review the impact of the alcohol duty freeze on public health.