Budget Resolutions

George Kerevan Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

Absolutely. Women’s economic empowerment is one of the most powerful levers we have to help drive growth in our economy and, more broadly, around the world over the years ahead.

Looking at how we are going to plug the skills gap, only 10% of adults in our country hold a technical qualification as their highest educational achievement. Germany currently produces twice as many science, engineering and technology technicians. Driving these skills will power innovation and growth and, in turn, our economy. That benefits everyone, so we cannot afford to wait. Other economies have been ahead of us in developing the skills of the future, and this Government are clear that we will not fall further behind. We should recognise that globalisation and automation are changing the modern workplace. Thirty-five per cent. of our existing jobs are at a high risk of being replaced in the next 10 to 20 years, not through competition but by technology.

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State mentions Germany’s lead in training in technical positions. Does she link that in any way with the fact that Germany consistently has a much higher level of corporation tax in order to fund that?

[Justine Greening]

Germany has its own approach to corporation tax. Ours has been steadily, and dramatically, to reduce it in order to make sure that companies can retain the profits they are making to be able to reinvest in growing their companies. The proof of the pudding is in the substantial and significant job creation that we have seen in our economy, by comparison with many other countries, over recent years. That is why we are able to put money into our public services.

As we prepare to leave the European Union, we will need to be more self-sufficient in our workforces, in our skills and in the training of our young people to set ourselves up for success. We will need new ideas, new jobs and new investment to confidently meet every challenge and grasp the opportunities ahead of us. We want a global Britain strong at home and strong abroad. It is now time for Britain to step up a gear to begin the shift up to the high-skill, high-productivity economy that we can be. This Government are ready to act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Grammar schools can and should be an engine for social mobility. The Government’s White Paper and the Education Secretary’s proposals include new measures to ensure that grammar schools take on a higher proportion of pupils on free school meals. There is a very successful case study: the King Edward VI grammar schools in Birmingham. They have taken a number of steps, including offering outreach to local primary schools in deprived areas, free tuition for their tests, and bursaries to fund school uniforms and travel. Together, they have increased the grammar schools’ free school meal intake from 3%, which is a very low figure, to about 22%. This shows that the Education Secretary’s proposals work in practice, and I strongly welcome them.

[George Kerevan]

In the interests of joined-up thinking, may I ask what proportion of qualifications the new grammar schools will give over to T-levels?

[Chris Philp]

It is up to individual schools to set their own individual curriculums, and to offer their pupils and parents a choice. That is what localism means. Of course grammar schools, by their nature, tend to be more academic in flavour—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Well, that is what a grammar school is—that should hardly be a surprise to Opposition Members. Other kinds of school have a more technical specialisation. Diversity of provision, choice for parents and variety in our system are signs of success, which Conservative Members celebrate.

Let me turn to other measures in the Budget, starting with business rates. Like several hon. Members, I was concerned about the effect of the business rates revaluation on smaller businesses. The town of Purley in my constituency was particularly affected by some quite significant upward revaluations. In that context, it is welcome that the Budget announced £435 million of discretionary relief to help small businesses in towns such as Purley. I would suggest, particularly to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, that it might be worth reconsidering the profiling of that £435 million over time. The lion’s share of that money comes in the first two years: £180 million in 2017-18; and £85 million in 2018-19. That is welcome, but the transitional relief—the upward caps on rates increases—for small businesses is 5% in 2017-18, and 7.5% in 2018-19, so most small businesses will not feel too much of an effect in the next two years. It is really in three, four and five years’ time that increases will be most powerfully felt. Would the Chief Secretary consider changing the profile of that money so that, instead of being front-loaded in the next one or two years, it can be back-loaded into years 3 and 4, when the effects of the business rate increases will be felt most heavily? The total amount of money would remain the same—£435 million—but the profile would be shifted over time better to match the effect of the business rates increases.

I offer a second thought on transitional relief for the future, which again relates to the upward and downward caps. Bills have been sent out for 2017-18. There is an upward cap of 5% for small businesses, so no small business will face an increase of more than 5%, and there is a downward cap for large businesses of 4.1%, so no large business gets a decrease greater than 4.1%. I accept that that is now fixed.

Looking into the future, however, and particularly to 2019-20 and 2020-21, I wonder whether the autumn statement might consider fine tuning those upward and downward caps so that the largest businesses, such as the big four supermarkets, have a lower or even a zero further downward cap, so that they get no further decreases beyond next year’s decrease. That could fund a more generous upward cap for the smallest businesses, meaning that the upward cap of 10% to 15% in 2019-20 and 2020-21 could be reduced. This approach would be fiscally neutral. It would not affect arrangements for the coming financial year, which I accept are fully set in stone, but it would help small businesses in three or four years’ time, including businesses in Purley. I have noticed that the cumulative upward cap for such small businesses over the five-year period accumulates to 64.2%, which represents quite a high cap. If we could find a way of softening the blow, it would be very welcome indeed.

The Chancellor’s Budget statement also touched on pollution, particularly due to diesel cars. My constituency, like all London constituencies, is profoundly affected by this problem. The Chancellor mentioned that a plan would be delivered over the summer, in response to the European Union court case, and that fiscal measures would be introduced in the autumn Budget.

I have significant reservations about Sadiq Khan’s proposed diesel scrappage scheme, which would cost £515 million over two years in London. The cost of such a scheme nationally would be £3.5 billion a year over two years, which would be unaffordable and would, in fact, simply cause one set of diesel cars to be replaced by another. I do not support the diesel scrappage scheme proposed by the Mayor of London, but one fiscal measure that the Government might consider, bearing in mind that diesel cars now burn 10 million tonnes of fuel a year—a three times increase over the last 10 years —is introducing a significantly increased registration tax for new diesel cars. I am talking about cars, not vans and lorries, because I accept that including them would have an impact on business. That approach would help to deter people from buying new diesel cars, which now make up about half of all new car purchases in this country. Such a measure would have no retrospective effect on people who have already bought a diesel car, but it would encourage people to switch away from diesel cars, which would do a great deal to help to ease pollution problems in cities such as London in the months and years ahead.

I see that I am rapidly approaching the time limit, so let me conclude—[Interruption.] I am glad I have said something that is popular among Opposition Members. I welcome the Budget, which continues the Government’s record of job creation and growth. I congratulate the Education Secretary and the Chief Secretary again on protecting and growing education funding, and on committing to fund more excellent schools in our country.

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

This was a dull Budget, although I do not necessarily say that as a criticism, because it was meant to be dull. The Chancellor did most of his heavy lifting in the autumn statement, in which he amassed a war chest by borrowing more than £120 billion. The criticism of the Budget is that rather than using that war chest now to raise productivity and improve education, he has put it aside because he does not know what will happen after the Brexit deal is done.

The Secretary of State for Education made a reasonable fist of trying to explain the new T-levels. If her explanation had lasted for two or three minutes, I would have believed her, but after half an hour, I began to think that she was arguing a little bit too hard, as if she did not really believe it herself. The T-levels were one of the more innovative parts of the Budget—I do not demur from that—but if we want a technical education of the standard that exists in Germany or the Netherlands, we must have the schools, and the workshops, computers and machinery in those schools, to do the teaching. In fact, the equipment in the schools has to be better than what people will find in the factory after they have graduated. The way to raise productivity is by training in schools at the highest and most advanced technological level.

If the money that the Budget gave to increasing selective education had been put into technical schools in line with the investment that takes place in Germany and the Netherlands, I might just have believed what the Government said. However, the T-levels are yet another blind by a Government who want to pursue selective academic education for a very narrow stream of people, which will not solve the problem of productivity.

The one significant change in the Budget that had the biggest impact was the rise in national insurance for the self-employed, so let us try to connect that to the whole question of educational productivity. Rather than Members listening to me, let us take the evidence of two companies: a construction and investment company called Chiswell; and a building company called Castlemead. Does anyone know who these companies are? They are both owned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. To give him his due, he put those companies into a blind trust in 2010. He is an honourable man, so there is no question of him influencing these companies at the moment, unlike certain Presidents of the United States who we might mention.

It is interesting to see what these companies are thinking about the economy, productivity and skills. The 2016 accounts of Castlemead say that the building industry is

“suffering from supply bottlenecks, particularly of skilled tradespeople, driving up costs.”

What does the building company Chiswell say? It states:

“The scarcity of good quality and committed subcontractors is still an issue”.

The company is considering going back into house building. Of course, this skills and supply bottleneck is largely seen among the self-employed. To sum up, the Federation of Master Builders says that 60% of SME construction firms are struggling to hire bricklayers and carpenters.

The Secretary of State claims that the increase in technical training will help to supply some of this much-needed skill demanded by Chiswell and Castlemead. At the same time, however, the Chancellor is removing the incentive to work and to take up training because he is raising the taxes of the very workers whom his companies say they need. In other words, the Chancellor is so short-sighted that he is hurting not only his own businesses but, sadly, everybody else’s.

This is not just a dull Budget because, at its heart, there is a ticking timebomb. The OBR forecast about what happens next is interesting, as it relates to whether the money will be there to provide the training about which the Secretary of State has spoken. The Chancellor was concerned to tell us that, under his chancellorship, growth has been very strong in the past 12 months. Growth in this country has been powered by consumer borrowing. If we drill into this, we find that the OBR says that in 2016 the savings ratio in the UK hit a historical low—it has gone to zero and below. People are dissaving. If people are not saving, ultimately the funds are not there to finance the investment that will raise productivity. Moreover, because saving has collapsed, the OBR does not think that there is a potential for consumer borrowing and consumer expenditure to continue to carry the economy. The OBR predicts a downturn in the availability of consumer funds over the next 12 months, so the dissaving cannot continue.

Most of the boost to consumer spending last year was a hangover from 2015, when inflation was fairly low. As real incomes were rising—a rare occurrence in the previous 10 years—people felt that they were a bit better off. However, now that inflation is rising, because the pound has tanked, we can expect consumer borrowing to disappear, so how will the economy meet its growth targets? The OBR says that the borrowing will be replaced by a rise in business investment. When I asked the OBR officials who appeared before the Treasury Committee yesterday why they thought that—where was the evidence that business investment would rise?—they had a wonderful answer, which quite took my breath away: “Business investment has been so low for so long that it is bound to go up some time.” [Laughter.] That was what they said; Members can go and read the transcript.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

Things can only get better.

[George Kerevan]

Indeed, but I will believe that when I see it, and I will believe that pigs can fly.

[Ian Blackford]

May I amplify the point that my hon. Friend is making? On page 7 of its book, the OBR states that investment intentions have been put on hold, but when we turn the page, we find that business investment is forecast to grow by between 3.7% and 4.2% between 2018 and 2021. It simply does not add up, does it?

[George Kerevan]

Not only does it not add up, but it means that we will not have the investment in plant and machinery that will raise productivity. We will miss our productivity targets yet again. Since the Chancellor has amassed his war chest, he should be using it. He should not wait for two or three years to see what happens after Brexit—no general does that. What is needed is investment now. Let us get on with the T-levels. Let us invest in English schools. I think that that would be a good thing to do, but it is not what the Budget says.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s speech. As I understand it—a Minister may be able to confirm this—the Government have invested £300 million. Colleges can apply for technical status, and the money will help to provide all the equipment, which I entirely agree is needed.

[George Kerevan]

I accept that proposition but, having spent 25 years of my life teaching in further education, I know that £300 million for the whole of England and Wales becomes a tiny amount when we drill down to all the individual institutions. Can the Government not confront reality? If we want the productivity levels of Germany, we should not be talking about £300 million; we should be talking about £30 billion. If the Government do not want to spend £30 billion, that is fine, but they should not pretend that small amounts of money somehow solve the problem.

[Ian Blackford]

I learned a lot from my hon. Friend because about 35 years ago he was my economics lecturer.

We have delegated responsibility to the Bank of England through the quantitative easing programme, and that has led to a lack of balance. We have seen £435 billion of QE that simply has not worked, but we have not seen enough fiscal responsibility from the Government to create the circumstances that will deliver sustainable growth.

[George Kerevan]

My hon. Friend is right. However, it is important to pin the blame where it is deserved, because perhaps the Chancellor gets too much of it. The blame actually lies in Downing Street with the Prime Minister. When she launched her bid for leadership of the Conservative party on 30 June 2016, she said:

“If before 2020 there is a choice between further spending cuts, more borrowing and tax rises, the priority must be to avoid tax increases since they would disrupt consumption, employment and investment.”

Yet now we have a Budget that will raise the taxes of the self-employed and entrepreneurs—the people whose motivation is required for growth in the economy and an increase in productivity. It is the Prime Minister who has reneged on her leadership promise; the Chancellor is only doing her bidding.

This Budget claims to address the questions of education and productivity, but it is actually about selectivity and privilege for the narrow few. Let me tell the House what it has not done. For the first time in 100 years, the millennial generation is earning less than its parents. The Budget does not deal with that, because the Chancellor has sat on his war chest. Home ownership among middle earners is falling for the first time in 50 years. Mrs Thatcher would be turning in her grave if she heard that that was happening under a Conservative Government. By 2020-21—the end of the forecast period—average incomes will be a fifth less than they would have been if growth had continued at pre-crisis levels. There will be £5,000 less for every household.

The Conservative Government have not delivered a return to wealth for the ordinary person. The Chancellor’s freeze on universal credit and housing benefits means that one person in seven will have a lower real income in five years’ time. This is a Budget that does not address the real issues of inequality in this country. It is a Budget for inertia and complacency, and I will vote against it.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

George Kerevan Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 18th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House earlier, but the International Monetary Fund has today upgraded its growth forecast. All the economic indicators are pointing to robust growth, despite the acknowledged challenges of the negotiating period ahead.

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

In the interests of this potentially more consensual period in the run-up to Prorogation, as we try to work out what will remain in the Bill, could the Financial Secretary tell the House where the £2 billion per annum to replace the non-raising of the national insurance contribution is going to come from, if she is so wedded to balancing the books?

[Jane Ellison]

The Chancellor was clear at the time and in our statements about the Budget and subsequent decisions that we are looking to balance the budget across the period. Clearly, if we are going into a general election campaign, we will have more to say about that in the manifesto. We will lay that out there; this is not the place for that.

[George Kerevan]

This is the Finance Bill!

[Jane Ellison]

Well, there are measures in the Bill that are immediately and openly about revenue raising, and we will come to some of those. The Chancellor was very direct about that when he made his Budget statement and, indeed, at the time of the autumn statement.

Let me say a bit about what the Government have done to support fairness between the generations. An essential priority for this Government is that everyone should have access to our NHS when they need it, and that everyone should enjoy security and dignity in old age. That is why we announced in the spring Budget an additional £2 billion—that has just been referred to—in funding for adult social care. This means that councils in England will have access to, in total, £9.25 billion more dedicated funding for social care over the next three years as a result of changes introduced by this Government since 2015.

On top of that, in the last two fiscal events we have done much to help to build a better future for our younger generation by helping people to save more of the money they earn; by investing in education and skills, which was a key theme of the autumn statement and of the Budget; and by building more affordable homes. The Finance Bill will build on this work, particularly by helping to tackle childhood obesity and to deliver a healthier future for our children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Mills]

I absolutely agree: it is important that we continue to send the signal that Britain is a great place to do business and to invest. We want as much international investment here as we can get, so it is absolutely right to have a headline corporation tax rate that is as low as we can have it. I welcome the fact that we are going to get it down to 17%. The previous Chancellor hinted that he might have used 15% to give a sense of direction; perhaps the Government will look into using that in the manifesto we are about to produce.

[George Kerevan]

Can the hon. Gentleman explain why Germany, which has a much higher headline rate of corporation tax, does so much better industrially?

[Nigel Mills]

I think I would have had to attend several of the hon. Gentleman’s lectures to understand better how the German economy works, but that is not something I have ever studied. We could probably talk about euro rates and the history of investment in skills and so on, but I suspect it is not all down to corporation tax.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and to join in this discussion on the great subject of sugar. While listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies), who told us the extraordinary fact that an average five-year-old eats his own body weight in sugar during the course of a year, I considered my own children. I do not have a five-year-old—I have a six-year-old, a four-year-old and lots of others—but the six-year-old weighs 3 stone, which seems to me to be similar to the weight likely to apply to five-year-olds. That is 42 lb, or 672 oz, so if a five-year-old is eating his own body weight in sugar in a year, he is eating 1.84 oz of sugar a day, which is equivalent to 11 teaspoons of sugar. One thinks of the lines of Mary Poppins:

“Just a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down”,

and one wonders whether the medicine goes down even better after 11 spoonfuls of sugar.

In spite of thinking that 11 teaspoons of sugar is quite a lot, I am not in favour of sugar taxes, because I do not think it is the job of the Government to tell me how much sugar to give to my children. I think that is a matter for parents to decide for themselves, and the tax system should be there to raise the revenue the country needs to pay its way. The tax system is not there to tell us how to live our lives. There may be an exception with tobacco, but that is not really the case with alcohol, which is a matter of raising revenue. Our rates on alcohol work very well in raising revenue, as, incidentally, do those on tobacco, which is a serious generator of funds for the Treasury to pay its way.

I am sceptical about the proposed approach. I was struck by my hon. Friend’s comments that a lot of obesity is in fact genetic. If that is the case, we are penalising people who have a genetic propensity to obesity while it is fine for people like me.

[George Kerevan]

rose—

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I give way to another hon. Gentleman for whom it is fine to eat lots of sugar.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Kerevan]

Indeed, I had a fine East Lothian Easter egg. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the difficulty with the hands-off approach he suggests, leaving it entirely to the individual, is that there is a vast advertising industry that also influences consumer behaviour and that using a sin tax is a way of evening out that process?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

There is indeed an advertising industry, but we live in a free country and people ought to be able to advertise products. We have a lot of misinformation, have we not? We now learn that fat is not as bad for people as it was said to be, and that people have put sugar into products from which they have removed the fat in order to make them taste nicer because fat-free products without sugar taste disgusting. Advice that turned out to be wrong has led to manufacturers doing things that then turn out to be unhealthy. I am suspicious of the advice that comes from Government and their ability to get it right. If they end up getting it wrong, force us to change our behaviour and tax us, we get the worst of all possible worlds.

A little bit of sugar does nobody any harm at all—only taking it to excess does so—and the only justification, which has indeed been made, is for children. However, I think that ignores the responsibility of parents, most of whom are responsible, and puts up the cost for responsible parents of giving their children what may, in many households, be an occasional treat rather than a regular habit. It is a tax that falls hardest on the poorest in society, who may occasionally be giving their children something that they like, because of the excesses of others. I do not really think that that is the job of the Government.

That leads me to the issue of hypothecated taxation. Ministers should write out 100 times a day, “Hypothecation is a bad idea.” That has been the Treasury orthodoxy for as long as there has been a Treasury. Hypothecated tax does not work because it produces the wrong amount of money for what it is seeking. We see that with the prospect of putting money from the sugar tax into schools. We now discover that not enough money is likely to come from the sugar tax to meet the obligations given to schools, and that money will therefore have to come out of general taxation.

If it were a good idea to put the money into schools in the first place, it ought to have come out of general taxation in the normal way. If it was not a good idea, but just a clever way of spending the money, taxpayers’ money should not have been used. If we get into the position that something is now being done that did not need to be done because it was promised as money from a tax that has not arisen, that is not a good way of carrying out Government policy. All hypothecation of taxation should be struck off: it simply leads to the wrong amounts.

That leads me to the broader point I want to make about this Finance Bill and the Budget that preceded it. It is very good news that an election has been called, because the Budget has become so hemmed in by the number of promises on taxation and revenue expenditure that have quite rightly been kept. Governments ought to keep their promises, and this Government have been absolutely rigorous in doing so, even ones that I do not like. For instance, I am not in favour of the 0.7% going on overseas aid, which I think has been a wasteful and extravagant promise when money is needed elsewhere. However, the justification was that it was in our manifesto, and in manifestos parties make a pact with the electorate that they ought to continue with except under the most extraordinary circumstances that have not arisen.

Such an approach has led to very many areas of expenditure being fixed, while taxation has been limited at the same time. The deficit has been brought down to a third of what it was when this Government came in—a very substantial achievement, of which this Government and their predecessor ought to be proud—but it has become very hard to take that any further because of the encapsulating commitments that are limiting the Chancellor’s freedom of action. That is why the Finance Bill, for all that it has 700 pages, will not lead to a great deal of fundamental reform. It is tweaking things at the edges—looking at little bits of money here and little bits there—rather than taking a fundamental or basic approach to our tax system.

Our tax system has become overly complex and, from the pressure of having to find little bits of money, it is becoming even more complex, which makes it difficult for taxpayers to pay the right amount of tax. We can see that more anti-avoidance legislation has come in to stop avoidance, because we have overcomplicated the tax system in the first place and a corrective measure has therefore had to be taken to try to prevent revenue from seeping away. A good example is the discussions we are having about perceived employment as opposed to self-employment. The Government were extremely proud of their achievement in making self-employment easier, but a constituent who came to see me explained that the £3,000 national insurance contributions exemption for small businesses had led to all the people working for him having to become individual companies, whereby it cost £3,000 a year less to pay them than if they were directly employed or were employed through one subsidiary company.

Very good ideas come into individual Budgets—particular tax breaks to encourage particular forms of behaviour to lead to certain outcomes that the Government wish to see—but they then have to be corrected by anti-avoidance measures because they get taken and used in a way that was not intended under the initial legislation. That is why the election will be a great opportunity to stand on a platform of tax simplification, and I hope we will achieve the sort of majority that will help to push that through. To achieve tax simplification, it will be necessary to ensure that avoidance is removed at source, rather than by anti-avoidance measures. That means taking away some of the existing exemptions and incentives that encourage people to set up more complex systems than they need to minimise the amount of tax they pay.

I am a defender of people taking such an approach. If Parliament legislates for tax to be collected in a certain way, with certain exemptions and thresholds, the individual taxpayer is completely and legitimately entitled to use them to their fullest extent. The approach is the fault not of the taxpayer, but of Parliament for putting exemptions into or leaving them in legislation. We should always be very careful to distinguish avoidance from evasion. Evasion is straightforwardly criminal—not paying the amount of tax that is, by law, due. Avoidance is looking at the tax system and saying, “I do not owe that tax, and I do not have to pay it because Parliament has not legislated for me to pay it.” As individual taxpayers, we are all entitled, as are all our constituents, to pay the tax Parliament requires, not a penny less or a penny more. If we had a system that was simpler overall, that would be hugely beneficial.

There is a lot about anti-avoidance in the Finance Bill, including the new rules for non-doms, about which I would be very careful. We live in a world where some very rich people want to come to the United Kingdom, and when they are here they employ people, spend money and pay taxes. We have a system that has barely changed since the days of Pitt the Younger—I cannot say I remember them, but I wish I did—and that broadly unchanged system was actually very beneficial for our economy because it brought into this country wealthy individuals who then provided economic activity. It is absolutely right to ensure that people who are obviously domiciled here in all normal senses of the word should be seen as being domiciled here, but we do not want such a difficult regime that people who might come here and contribute to our economy feel that they cannot do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Targets are based on forecasts and forecasts have variables within them that even the wonderful, or not always wonderful, boffins cannot get absolutely right. What matters is not the precision of the forecast, but the broad trend of the economy. We have had consistent economic growth. We have the highest employment on record. This is an enormous achievement. As I said a moment ago, we have the fastest growing G7 economy.

[George Kerevan]

I cannot let the hon. Gentleman continue with his analysis of the previous Chancellor’s single plan for the economy. In the first two years of the previous Chancellor’s reign, from 2010 to 2012, there was a very rapid move to austerity—tax rises and cuts in spending. Growth slowed precipitously and by 2012 the Chancellor reversed his policy. In fact, he got the Treasury and the Bank of England to print money and pump it into the housing market, so there was a change in policy. The original austerity did not work.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I do not agree with that analysis. My analysis is that the austerity allowed for a looser monetary policy which had beneficial consequences, that between 2010 and 2012 it was essential to operate a very tight fiscal policy to permit exactly the type of monetary policy to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and that it would not have been possible to maintain the confidence of the markets if we had operated a loose fiscal policy and a loose monetary policy during those two years. The lack of economic growth during that period ties in with the considerable problems—the severe crisis—experienced by the eurozone and other economies.

On this occasion, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of what went wrong, although I often do agree with him. I see a continuity in the policy of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton. However, although no time limit has been imposed this evening, I do not feel that I should go on forever. Many Members wish to speak, and others want to have their dinner. Let me end by reiterating that we face a great choice: between the higher taxes proposed by the hon. Member for Bootle and the opportunity for lower taxes, sound economic growth and prosperity. I know you are independent, Madam Deputy Speaker, but vote Conservative.

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

I shall support the amendment, although that does not prevent me from believing that there are many interesting and good things in this draft Finance Bill. However, I find myself agreeing with my colleague on the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), in one respect. We will have two Finance Bills, because the current process has been truncated, and a much smaller Bill will be passed before the dissolution of Parliament. When a second Bill arrives later in the year, we shall have a chance to be more strategic and reforming, rather than continuing to add bits and pieces and ending up with the monstrosity—in terms of length—that we have at present. That said, I think that in the final few days, as we move towards a slimmed-down Finance Bill, there may be some room for an agreement between Government and Opposition on what can be achieved. In that context, I ask the Minister to deal with a couple of points when she responds to the debate.

Inevitably, in dealing with the financial period between 2015 and 2020—the year that would normally have marked the end of the current Parliament—the autumn statement and the March Budget made certain predictions about Government expenditure and taxation, along with certain promises about what would be achieved by 2020. One Parliament cannot bind another, and this Parliament, as it reaches its end, cannot bind the one that will arrive in the summer; nor can we predict who will govern following the general election. However, I think it would be helpful to Opposition Members if the Minister provided certain clarifications about the Government’s intentions, should they be returned in June, in respect of meeting the obligations that they set themselves for the period between now and 2020.

Let me give an example. The Government have guaranteed that they will meet their obligation to spend £1 billion derived from the sugar levy—the tax on the sugar industry—over the period ending in 2020. Normally that would fall, so I should like some indication of whether, should the Government be returned, that would continue to be their intention between now and the next Parliament It would be helpful for Opposition Members to know that. Although I think that the tax on the soft drinks industry is inadequate, and a bit quixotic in terms of what is and is not taxed, I also think that it is a step in the right direction. There are hypothecation issues, but, given that this is where we are, it would be useful if the Government guaranteed that, if re-elected, they would continue in the same direction.

City deals are another issue for Opposition Members. We were reaching an agreement with the Treasury on a number of city deals in, for instance, Edinburgh and East Lothian—some in the east of Scotland and some in the west—and I understand that the Treasury had intended to sign them off following the local government elections. Again, one Parliament cannot bind another, but I think it would be possible for the Treasury to provide some comfort on the subject of city deals before dissolution.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is presenting a marvellous argument for people to vote Conservative. He is presenting the positive argument that if the Minister assures him that the wonderful things that he expects us to do will indeed be done, they will definitely be delivered if the electorate vote Conservative. I look forward to the Minister’s assurances, given that the hon. Gentleman has basically asked everyone to vote Conservative.

[George Kerevan]

I was very careful to say that I was not anticipating who would actually be in government. I was giving the present incumbents in the Treasury a chance to say what they might do should they be re-elected.

Let me move on now, because I think it important to analyse the contents of the Bill. I think that it contains two sets of structural weaknesses. The first reflects what I consider to be a change in the pulse of the economy, which has occurred since the end of 2016 and is embedded in all the latest data that we have—data that have emerged in the last month, since the start of the Easter break. I fully accept that the Government have presided over a period of economic growth since 2010. I do not want to dismiss the figures—in a number of years, our growth rate has been higher than those in other large industrialised countries—but what has underpinned that growth? All the figures suggest that it has been underpinned by consumer spending, largely funded by the rise in consumer debt.

I do not gainsay the growth, but, in her opening remarks, the Minister placed a great deal of emphasis on the Government’s success in that regard. If economic growth is founded merely on consumer spending, and that consumer spending is based on borrowing, it is not sustainable, and I think it entirely legitimate to question how long the Government can go on relying on consumer debt to fund growth. In fact, we are now approaching the end of that period. What worries me is that the fiscal plan embedded in the autumn statement and the March Budget assumes the continuation of growth that is beginning to falter.

Let me make a point that I raised after the autumn statement, and also during the Budget debate. It seems to me that the Chancellor gave himself plenty of fiscal fire power in the autumn statement through increased borrowing—or, at least, the removal of some of the more over-optimistic projections of the previous Chancellor, and some of his more egregious games with time limits in relation to when income would arrive. The current Chancellor, in the autumn statement, clearly borrowed sufficient money in order to give himself some fire power should the economy slow. The trouble is that in the autumn statement all that spending power was delayed until post-2019, which is when we will see what the Brexit deal actually is. If the economy slows between now and 2019, it will be too late to use the fiscal fire power. That was the criticism of the autumn statement that was made by me, and by other Opposition Members.

The March Budget was fiscally neutral, by and large, but it has run into some headwinds. If the incoming Government, whoever they are, post-8 June, do not make up the projected shortfall from the proposed rise in national insurance contributions by the self-employed, there is a hole of a couple of billion pounds to fill. That aside, as I have said, the March Budget was fiscally neutral. If we put together the autumn statement and the March Budget, the Chancellor has a nest egg that he can bring to bear on a slowing economy, but it is pencilled in for 2019. For the next two years, he is relying on economic growth funded by consumer debt. However, all the latest numbers show that that is no longer happening.

[Jane Ellison]

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech and I welcome the consensual tone that he has struck on a number of measures. I have to push back on the charge that fiscal firepower will be delayed beyond 2019. The Chancellor was explicit in the autumn statement that we borrowed to invest in greater productivity and some of that is happening now. Some of the national productivity investment fund is for short-term investment. In addition, as the hon. Gentleman knows, Barnett consequentials of £800 million for the Scottish capital budget are there for the Scottish Government to spend as they see fit.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Kerevan]

I accept what the Minister says, but the extra investment from the productivity fund that is going into the economy at the moment totals hundreds of millions, not billions, of pounds. The bulk of the spend, when it comes in 2019, will be in long lead items. A lot of it will be for housing, which is one aspect of the productivity investment fund I have never quite understood, as I do not see how investing in housing will raise industrial productivity.

Let me come back to the key point on which I want the Minister to respond. The latest data on the economy show that consumer spending is starting to slow. The first quarter retail figures, out just this month, are the worst for six years. It is clear that the reserves of spending in consumer hands are disappearing.

The previous Chancellor was very lucky in that in 2010 to 2013 windfall gains came into consumers’ hands, particularly from insurance on mis-selling. In 2015, even though wage rises were limited, there was a precipitous fall in the inflation rate. That raised real incomes. It is clear that, in 2016, because of that boost to real incomes, people started borrowing again and consumer debt started to rise. By the end of 2016, the savings ratio in the UK had fallen to historically low levels. One can sustain that amount of consumer borrowing and spending only for so long. By the end of 2016, it was beginning to fall.

Like the hon. Member for North East Somerset, I was never moved by the visions of economic Armageddon from the Bank of England and the Treasury during the Brexit discussion. However, I do think that, in the next two years, investment will be impacted upon by Brexit fears. That is not happening at the moment. Therefore, I think that there is reasonable evidence that the tapering off of consumer expenditure is not to do with the Brexit debate; that is still to come down the highway. It is to do with the fact that consumers no longer have the reserves to go on increasing their spending, in which case we are looking at an economic downturn in 2017. That is precisely the time the Chancellor should be using his economic firepower, rather than, as in the March Budget, having a fiscally neutral stance.

When questioned on the matter, the Chancellor has said that the slack would be taken up by business investment. There is no sign of that. In real terms, business fixed investment has been falling since 2015. It started to fall well before the Brexit debate. It blipped a little in the middle of 2016, but it has gone on falling. There are no organic signs anywhere that business fixed investment is increasing. Business spending is going on all sorts of things—for example, moving corporate activities to Europe to protect against Brexit—and a lot of money is being spent on buying British companies. However, we are not getting fixed investment in machinery and plant, and even if we did, it would take several years for that to feed through into productivity gains.

The latest quarterly market purchasing managers’ report suggests that growth projections from purchasing managers, who are pretty hard-headed, have halved since the last quarter of 2016. My general conclusion is that the Government are being far too optimistic about where growth is going in the UK. It is going down.

Conservative Members like to quote international comparisons. The latest OECD projections for growth in 2017—the OECD never quite got to the more insane evaluations of a collapse in growth that some other agencies did in 2016—suggest that growth in the G20 countries, in the United States, in Germany and in Canada will on average outstrip UK growth, so the situation is no longer as rosy as the Minister would have us believe. Some of the fiscal proposals in the Bill are based on a previous analysis of where the economy is. They have been overtaken by events. If we go through a general election and come to an autumn Budget and a second Finance Bill, all bets are off and we will be back to square one. That is not the way to run an economy.

Earlier, we discussed corporation tax, which is a key element. There is a long-term plan to cut it, and that hinges on what happens in the Brexit discussion. Clearly, the Government want to try, in a post-Brexit world, to make Britain a very low-tax economy, in the sense of attracting inward investment by having low levels of corporation tax. The danger of that strategy is that other countries will follow us, particularly the US; the Trump Administration have already threatened that. However, there is a stark contrast between countries such as Germany, where the headline rate of corporation tax is still 30% to 33%, and the UK, which is cutting corporation tax. Germany has much better productivity and higher industrial investment. Why is it that it can do that, and outstrip the UK economy, when we, with corporation tax that is low at the moment and going lower, cannot seem to generate the industrial investment and higher productivity?

It comes back to the issue of consumption and relying on debt-fuelled consumption to power growth. If we power our economy through consumer debt, it becomes dangerous to raise taxes on consumers, because we would immediately see a drop in consumer spending. Germany has focused on driving its economy through industrial investment and exports. Once you have that, you take the pressure off taxation on the consumer. That is the solution to the riddle and it is why the Germans seem to tax their industries more but, by running the economy at a higher level and generating more sales from exports, take the pressure off. They recycle a lot of the tax money back into industrial and infrastructure investment. They equate the basis for the industrial wealth that they tax—

[Kevin Foster]

I am listening with interest to some of the hon. Gentleman’s points. Does he agree that one of the issues that the German economy has, particularly in its industrial sector, is that many of its markets are locked into exchange rates by the euro? In more free-flowing economies and in previous exchange rates, it would have been able to devalue and so increase its competitive advantage.

[George Kerevan]

I am happy to agree with that point. The weakness of the euro is that across Europe it has locked the German supply chain into an artificially low exchange rate. On the back of that, Germany has generated a massive trade surplus, which it is not redistributing. That is undermining the whole European economy. I perfectly accept that. I was not arguing that the German economy is perfect; rather, I am suggesting that it is too simplistic to link the headline level of corporation tax with the performance of the economy, because we can find all sorts of examples that go the other way.

My real criticism, which I still direct to the Minister, is that the growth that the Conservative Government have trumpeted as their success is based on the shifting sands of consumer debt, which has now reached a level that cannot be sustained, so we need something else. We definitely do need to increase the level of industrial investment, and that requires a different set of fiscal tools in order to encourage consumer saving and recycle that consumer saving into industrial investment. That is the whole weakness that underlies the Finance Bill: it is a set of small measures based on the assumption that the economy will go on growing because consumers will go on spending. If they do not, the whole rationale of the Finance Bill falls apart.

I will now briefly move on to the second pillar, and the second strategic weakness, of the Finance Bill. In order to maintain the level of consumer spending, this Government have had to pass a series of pieces of legislation to bind their own hands when it came to raising taxes on consumers. If we do that, we then have to find money from somewhere else. Therefore, although this Bill contains a series of small tax rises here and there, in the aggregate what is happening is that this Government are being forced to start distorting the entire tax system because they have no other way to go but to invent new stealth taxes to maintain the level of income to Government.

The Clerks to the Treasury Committee came up with a rather interesting example on probate—the tax, if tax it be, on the probating of wills. The proposal for the levy on probating added to the cut in inheritance tax results in an anomaly. Where a father and mother leave a house to their children that is worth, let us say, £1 million and one penny, the inheritance tax is tiny—it works out at 40p—but the probate that has to be paid is £8,000. So in effect, cutting inheritance tax and replacing it with a probate levy gets us back to where we started. We can see that once we start down that road, we will go on increasing the levy on probate simply as a revenue earner.

That is not just happening with the tax on probate; it is happening in a whole series of small tax changes. By legislating to put a lock on income tax and other taxes, we end up having to raise revenue in a series of anomalous and distorting ways, and that makes the Finance Bill even more complicated.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the difficulty with doing this through charges is that they come through in a statutory instrument, whereas new taxes go through a much fuller parliamentary procedure? We should all be concerned about taxes that do not see the full rigour of parliamentary scrutiny.

[George Kerevan]

I could not agree more, and I look forward to the hon. Gentleman taking that up in the 1922 Committee—as I am sure he has.

If we run through a whole series of the provisions in the Bill for raising taxation, we see this creeping distortion of the tax system, such as the tax-free allowance on dividend incomes being cut from £5,000 to £2,000 to raise £800 million, which is a substantial, chunky sum. We can see where the tax-free allowance on dividend income is going to go. As for VAT on mobile phones used outside the EU, I can pretty well guarantee that if this Government are returned, the moment we are out of the EU that roaming tax will go on to our phone bill when we are taking our holiday in the 27 member states.

The insurance premium tax is one of the worst means that this Government have tried simply to increase revenue. They keep raising it year by year, so the increase of 20% proposed in the November autumn statement is simply a revenue-raising tax—there is no rationale other than simply to raise money. In terms of the insurance premium tax, there is a whole series of insurance forms not yet covered by the tax, so one can quickly see a future Chancellor saying, “Well, let’s put the insurance premium tax on reinsurance, or on buying shipping and aircraft. Why shouldn’t an airline pay insurance premium tax on buying an aircraft?” Rather than using the core taxes like income tax, we will end up with a series of distorting taxes, including the rise in spirit duty and the tax on whisky in the March Budget. I presume the Chancellor said to himself, “Well, with the significant fall in the value of the pound, there will be a gain in terms of export prices, so we can afford to claw some of that back as a tax,” but it is not strategic to the needs of the industry; it is simply a revenue-raising power.

What is wrong with the Bill as it stands? It misunderstands the nature of where the economy is and makes no allowance for the fact that consumer spending is about to decelerate, and it introduces a whole raft of new taxes, or increases in stealth taxes, which are fundamentally a change in direction and a distortion of economic processes.

I hope that when we come back after 8 June for a second bite of the cherry with a second Finance Bill, the Government might, should this Government be returned, be willing to look at some of these matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Suella Fernandes]

I could not agree more. That is the point that I want to make. It is a principle of basic economics. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) referred to her A-level economics. She will be familiar with the Laffer curve and basic economics, which say that higher taxes do not necessarily lead to higher tax revenues because they reduce the tax base.

[George Kerevan]

Does this Bill not raise taxes on insurance, and on this, that and the other thing? Is the hon. Lady in favour of the Bill or not?

[Suella Fernandes]

I completely agree. I am not saying no tax rises at all. I am saying that tax rises have to be prudently applied, and this Conservative Government definitely apply that principle, as we are seeing when it comes to income tax. Let us look at why people work. They go to work because they want to preserve the amount of money that is not taxed. It is the post-tax amount, not the pre-tax amount, that we all work for. Increasing the tax rate reduces the amount that people have available for themselves and decreases the amount available to be taxed.

[George Kerevan]

They are paying for the health service.

[Suella Fernandes]

Yes, but let us see what history has shown. When Gordon Brown increased the higher rate of tax, tax revenue fell. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) dropped it again, tax revenues increased. It shows that we need to incentivise people to work and invest in education and training, and incentivise businesses to invest in this country and to employ people, which generates more economic activity and revenue that can be ploughed back into our public services. That is what Opposition Members fail to grasp and Conservative Members see very clearly. That is why under Governments led by Labour we ended up with higher taxes, higher borrowing, higher debt and in a recession that this Government are still tidying up.

To close, I am pleased that this Government are committed to enabling people to keep more of the money they earn so that individuals and businesses can take part in our economy. We can create a fairer Britain, and a country in which we can all prosper and be rewarded for our efforts.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

George Kerevan Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 25th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I wish you well in your retirement.

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

May I, too, thank the new hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) for such a passionate and entertaining speech? It is good to have a representative of the land of Beatrix Potter here in this Chamber. I listened to her last points about the deficit and her encomium that this Government are bringing it down. I will be slightly wicked in saying that I am sure she knows that the Office for Budget Responsibility is forecasting a rise in Government borrowing this financial year, and she might care to ask why that is the case.

I have one specific question for the Minister on this group, as her introduction notably failed to explain why clause 5 has been withdrawn. That clause deals with the proposed reduction in the dividend income that investors in small companies can take. Are the Government embarrassed by the clause and is that why it is being withdrawn?

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 disagreed to.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Workers’ services provided to public sector through intermediaries

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 8 to 15 stand part.

Government amendment 4.

Clauses 48 to 51 and 124 to 127 stand part.

Government motion to transfer clause 127.

Clauses 128 and 129 stand part.

Government amendment 10.

That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.

Government amendments 11 and 12.

That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.

Government amendment 57.

That schedules 16 to 18 and 27 to 29 be schedules to the Bill.

New clause 1—Review of international best practice in relation to tax avoidance and tax evasion—

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within two months of the passing of this Act, commission a review of international best practice by Governments and tax collection authorities in relation to—

(a) the prevention and reduction of tax avoidance arrangements, and

(b) combatting tax evasion.

(2) A report of the review under subsection (1) must be laid before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(3) In this section, “tax avoidance arrangements” mean arrangements broadly comparable in their effect to arrangements in the United Kingdom which have the obtaining of a tax advantage as the main purpose, or one of the main purposes, of the arrangements.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I do not believe that there is a huge amount of evidence for that. When companies are looking at where to base their headquarters and their staff, corporation tax does not feature all that high up the list. They are looking for good infrastructure, schools and support for individuals in the community. Corporation tax is not at the top of the list, so I would do other things first to try to encourage inward investment, if it were me who was in government and making those decisions.

[George Kerevan]

It will be someday.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Mr Hoyle, that is the end of my comments on this group.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 9 and 10 disagreed to.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 12 to 16 disagreed to.

Clauses 17 and 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 19 and 20 disagreed to.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 22 to 44 disagreed to.

Clauses 45 to 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 48

Employment Income Provided through Third Parties

Amendment made: 4, page 49, line 26, leave out

“Schedules 16 and 17 make”

and insert “Schedule 16 makes”.—(Jane Ellison.)

Clause 48, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 49 to 56 disagreed to.

Clause 57

VAT: Zero-rating of Adapted Motor Vehicles Etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to put his local scout group on the record. These issues have been discussed in general terms. In particular, I spoke at the Charity Tax Group conference recently. The point that I made there was that although we are not making exceptions for a number of reasons—some of them logistical—there are many different ways in which the Government exempt tax for charities and try to support them in other ways. The existing tax reliefs that go to charities and community groups in this country are worth many billions, and many are not taken up as much as they should be. In particular, the issue of scout groups got a very thorough airing during the passage of the gift aid small donation scheme measures that we took through the House last autumn. Those measures are designed to help such groups that do a lot of their fundraising outside their headquarters. Although I cannot give him comfort on this issue, I draw his attention to the fact that there are many other ways in which we help to relieve worthy groups. In particular, I refer to that recent change, which I encourage him to discuss with the Perivale scout group, because, as I have said, that was made very much with it in mind, especially with regard to how it collects donations.

[George Kerevan]

Essentially, this is one of the taxes that the Government are keeping in. It is the third insurance premium tax rise in 18 months. Will the Minister justify why the Government are proposing this third increase, which actually increases the rate by 20%—well above the rate of inflation?

[Jane Ellison]

I am coming to that, but the Chancellor was admirably clear when he laid the change out for the House when it was announced.

The Government have worked to eliminate the deficit and to invest in Britain’s future. We want to ensure that the public finances remain sustainable and to build resilience to future shocks. We have prioritised tax changes to help ordinary working families, and encouraged businesses to invest in the UK. We are supporting jobs and helping people’s money to go further through increases to the personal allowance and the national living wage. We have committed to investing £23 billion for infrastructure in the national productivity investment fund and an extra £2 billion for social care, which will ease pressures on the national health service.

By increasing insurance premium tax, we will ensure that we can maintain the balance between that investment and controlling the deficit. The additional revenue gives the Government the flexibility to invest. IPT is a tax on insurers. They are not in any way obliged to pass on the tax through higher premiums. However, if insurers do choose to pass on the increase, it will be spread thinly across a wide range of people and businesses. In line with the informal agreement between the Government and the Association of British Insurers, firms have been given more than six months’ notice, which gives time to implement the change. The agreement aims to give insurers proper warning of a rate change and to ensure that the correct rate of tax on a policy is known when the policy is arranged.

The changes made by clause 58 will raise approximately £840 million each year to reduce the deficit, while ensuring that we can fund spending commitments. That really is the answer to the intervention by the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan). Insurance premium tax is a tax on insurers, not consumers. It will be insurance companies’ choice whether to pass on the 2% rate increase. Even if the increases were passed on in full, the impact would be modest, costing households less than 35p a week on average.

The changes made by clause 59 will protect revenue by ensuring that insurers cannot artificially avoid paying the new rate of IPT by adjusting contract dates. As I have said, the Government are committed to reducing the deficit, while still investing in the UK. This requires some difficult decisions, including this 2% increase to the standard rate of IPT. The change will be invaluable in funding vital public spending, such as the additional £2 billion committed to social care.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Kerevan]

I have two points. First, I reiterate to the Minister, who artfully shifted to saying that there was a 2% rise in the tax, that there is a two percentage point rise. It is a 20% rise in the tax. I asked the Minister how she justified that massive, excessive increase relative to inflation. She did not reply—I suspect because, as a Conservative tax cutter, she is embarrassed. I have a further question for the Minister. Will she rule out extending the provision of IPT to reinsurance? Clearly, IPT has been hit on by the Government because it is one of the few things that they have not yet legislated not to increase as a form of taxation. That will doubtless change in the Conservative manifesto. But as long as this is the tax that the Government are hitting on because it is the one they have left, will the Minister state that they will not in future years extend IPT to the reinsurance market, which would net them even more money?

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 58 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 60

Landfill tax: taxable disposals

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Clauses 61 to 64 stand part.

Amendment 1, in clause 65, page 73, line 4, leave out subsection (2).

Clauses 65 to 70 stand part.

New clause 3—Review of oil and gas corporation tax rates and investment allowances—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within two months of the passing of this Act, commission a review of the corporation tax rates and investment allowances applicable to companies producing oil and gas in the UK or on the UK continental shelf.

(2) A report of the review under subsection (1) must be laid before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”

New clause 4—Review of tax regime relating to decommissioning of oil and gas infrastructure—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within two months of the passing of this Act, commission a review of the ways in which the tax regime could be changed to increase the competitiveness of UK-registered companies in bidding for supply chain contracts associated with the decommissioning of oil and gas infrastructure or the development of new fields in the UK continental shelf.

(2) In undertaking the review under subsection (1), the Chancellor of the Exchequer must consult—

(a) the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy;

(b) the Oil and Gas Authority;

(c) Scottish Ministers; and

(d) such other stakeholders as the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks appropriate.

(3) A report of the review under subsection (1) must be laid before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I appreciate the Government withdrawing the making tax digital provisions. I understand their commitment to making tax digital, but the changes are reasonable.

[George Kerevan]

With your indulgence, Sir David, I thought that this might be an appropriate moment to pay tribute to the outgoing right hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), the Chair of the Treasury Committee, which has paid a lot of attention to making tax digital. There could be no more fitting tribute to the right hon. Gentleman leaving this House than the Government withdrawing the making tax digital provisions.