Finance (No. 2) Bill

James Murray Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 29th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House declines to give the Finance (No. 2) Bill a second reading because, notwithstanding the introduction of the multinational top-up tax and electricity generator levy, it fails to introduce a targeted scheme to address pension issues affecting NHS doctors, instead making blanket changes to tax-free pensions allowances which, as they will cost around £1 billion a year and benefit only those with the biggest pension pots, should not be the priority, and because it derives from a Budget which failed to set out an ambitious plan for growing the economy.

Six months ago the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), described our economy as being stuck in a “vicious cycle of stagnation”, and on that one point he was absolutely right. To his credit, unlike many of his colleagues, he at least took responsibility, on behalf of the Conservative party, for more than a decade of economic failure.

However, although the previous Chancellor was right to point to our country’s economic stagnation, the prescription that he and the previous Prime Minister offered was nothing short of disastrous. They set the UK economy on fire, and people are still paying the price as a Tory mortgage penalty does lasting damage to the living standards of working people; yet the current Prime Minister and Chancellor expect praise for being better than the arsonists who preceded them. Could the bar seriously be any lower? British families and businesses deserve so much better than that. After 13 years of economic failure, people and businesses across the UK deserve a plan for the economy that offers more than managed decline.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I fear that the hon. Gentleman may know what I am about to say. Is he aware that, according to the International Monetary Fund, economic growth in the UK—GDP, either per capita or in terms of constant prices—has grown faster than economic growth in France, Germany, Italy and Japan, faster than the G7 average, faster than the EU average and faster than the euro area average? That is quite a record, and one to be proud of, so it is not a case of 13 years of economic failure. I invite the hon. Gentleman to pay tribute to the Government’s success in ensuring that our economy grows faster than the economies of all those other countries that have faced similar international challenges.

[James Murray]

Just two weeks ago, we were promised a Budget for growth. Let us now look at the data that was published alongside that Budget. It shows that ours is the only G7 economy that is forecast to shrink this year. Our long-term growth forecasts were downgraded in the Office for Budget Responsibility report.

[Anthony Browne]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Murray]

No, I am going to finish what I am saying before I give way again.

That data confirms that we are suffering the worst falls in household incomes in a century. The hon. Gentleman need look no further than the OBR report alongside the Budget, which make it very clear that this Government have little or nothing to be proud of when it comes to our economy. Across the UK, people and businesses want to get on with making our country better off, but we are being held back by a Government who are out of energy and out of ideas. That much is clear from the Bill that is before us today, which seeks to implement some of what the Government have promised.

Of course, consideration of any Bill on Second Reading must include what it omits as much as what it contains. Let us start with the fact that this Bill contains no mention of introducing stealth tax rises for working people, although we know that that is exactly what the Government are doing. We know that in the Budget of March 2021 and in the Finance Act that followed it, the then Chancellor, now the Prime Minister, froze the basic rate limit and personal allowance for income tax for four years. In the recent autumn statement of 2022 and in the Finance Act that followed that, the current Chancellor extended those freezes by a further two years. Now, following this month’s Budget, the OBR has made it clear that the Government’s six-year freeze in the personal allowance will take its real value in 2027-28 back down to its level in 2013-14. What is more, in a double whammy, families across the country will be hit next month by the Tories’ council tax bombshell, a move that will take the bill for a typical band D property above £2,000 for the first time. Look beyond the rhetoric from the Conservatives, and the reality is clear: their stealth taxes are hitting working people hard.

However, while the tax burden for working people is up, important measures that we have been calling for to make the tax system fairer are nowhere to be found in the Bill.

There is nothing in it to close the loopholes in the windfall tax on oil and gas giants, which we have been urging the Government to do for so long. Of course, we have been pressing for an extension of the energy price freeze for many months, and we were glad that the Government followed our lead in the Budget, but it is wrong that they are still leaving billions of pounds of windfall profits for oil and gas giants on the table when those windfalls of war should be helping to support families through the cost of living crisis.

[Matt Rodda]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Does he agree that the pressures that are, as he rightly said, felt by many families are also felt by our hard-working small businesses, which face extreme pressures on their costs, suppliers and energy costs? Does he agree that the Government seem to have forgotten about them?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is a real champion for small businesses in his constituency and beyond. We meet small business owners all the time, and they tell us that what they want are stability, certainty and a long-term plan from the Government, but none of that is evident in the Bill.

Something else that is missing is any legislation to tackle non-dom tax status. Non-doms are getting another reprieve from the Government. Labour believes that those who make Britain their home should pay their taxes here, but while families across the UK face higher taxes year on year, the Government are helping a few at the top to avoid paying their fair share of tax when they keep their money overseas. The non-dom rules that allow this to happen cost us more than £3 billion every year, and ending that outdated, unfair loophole could fund the biggest expansion of the NHS workforce in a generation.

For most people, ending non-dom status is a no-brainer, although we know that some opinions to the contrary do exist. Last week, for instance, we learnt of a blog published by Evelyn Partners, a wealth management firm which supplies accountancy services to the Prime Minister. In that blog, the firm makes it clear that it

“would prefer not to see further tinkering with the system”,

and feels that non-doms

“will welcome some continuing stability.”

I am tempted to paraphrase Mrs Merton’s legendary quip by asking, “Prime Minister, what first attracted you to this non-dom-supporting firm of accountants?”

The Prime Minister’s accountants have not only welcomed Government inaction over non-doms; they have welcomed the changes to tax-free pension allowances in part 1 of the Bill. As the shadow Health Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) has made clear, we have long been calling for a targeted scheme to deal with the pension issue facing doctors, which is forcing some of them to retire early. We had thought that a sensible, targeted approach might even gather cross-party support. Indeed, the Health and Social Care Committee made the same call last year, when the current Chancellor was its Chair. In its report published last July, it said:

“The government must act swiftly to reform the NHS pension scheme to prevent senior staff from reducing their hours and retiring early”.

However, now that he has moved into No. 11 Downing Street, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) has failed in one of the most important responsibilities of being Chancellor, which is to spend taxpayers’ money wisely.

The Conservatives could have included in the Bill a targeted scheme to encourage doctors to work overtime and not to retire early, but instead they have introduced an expensive blanket change that will benefit all those with the biggest pension pots. This approach fails the test of providing value for money. In the middle of a cost of living crisis, a blanket giveaway for some of the most well-off is the wrong way to spend more than £1 billion of public money a year. As the British Medical Association has said, a scheme targeted at doctors could be introduced at a fraction of the cost. The policy is ostensibly about keeping people in work, yet as Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies says, it will cost in the region of £100,000 per job retained. We voted against the policy last week, and as our amendment today explains, the Government’s approach is a key reason for our declining to give this Finance Bill a Second Reading.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government’s proposal will have a differential effect geographically, when comparing economies with low wages such as my own in Wales with London and the south-east, for example, and that that is hardly conducive to levelling up?

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment. The geographical impact of policies should always be considered, but we should also ensure that the Government consider targeting sectors. Rather than having a scheme that applies to everyone with a large pension pot, let us have a targeted scheme for NHS doctors, which is something we can all agree on.

Alongside the changes to the taxation of individuals’ pensions, this Finance Bill includes measures that will affect the taxation of businesses. Disappointingly, but unsurprisingly, there is no sign of the fundamental reform of business rates once promised by the Conservatives. The Bill does, however, include changes to corporation tax and allowances. In fact, making changes to corporation tax and allowances is something the Government have become quite experienced in. Under the Conservatives, corporation tax has changed almost every year since 2010, and as the Resolution Foundation has pointed out, the introduction of the latest temporary regime for corporation tax represents the fifth major change in just two years. Businesses deserve better than this. When I meet businesses across the country, they are clear that they want stability, certainty and a long-term plan, yet after 13 years in office, this Government are incapable of providing those crucial foundations for success.

The truth is that Conservative MPs have become deeply inward-looking and riven by division, and their default when faced with difficult choices is to put party before country. No matter what they say, this means that Conservative Ministers are simply incapable of providing stability and certainty in government. We can see that reality in the policies they announce. As Paul Johnson of the IFS said in response to the latest temporary tweak to the tax regime for businesses:

“There’s no stability, no certainty, and no sense of a wider plan.”

Indeed, we can see that by looking at the Government’s decision to allow temporary full expensing for expenditure on plant and machinery. We know how important it is to get capital allowances right as the rate of corporation tax is being increased, yet, as the Office for Budget Responsibility reveals, the Government’s approach will make no difference whatever to medium-term levels of business investment. Rather than a long-term permanent change, this change is for only three years. As a result, it only brings forward investment rather than increasing its overall level.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has talked about certainty and stability, and they are qualities that I would have some sympathy with, but can he rule out, here and now on the Floor of the House, that it is not going to be Labour’s plan under any circumstances to harmonise capital gains tax with income tax?

[James Murray]

As we have said several times, we will set out our plans in our own time. But let us be clear, if the hon. Member has concerns over capital gains tax, he might want to talk to those on his own Front Bench, because they raised it in the last Finance Bill by cutting the annual exempt amount. I suggest he talks to his colleagues before he raises questions with us.

[Richard Fuller]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Member is a very thoughtful man. I think one of the reasons that he might be hearing some questions from Conservative Back Benchers is that he has just positioned himself as the advocate for the policy that our Front Benchers are now implementing. I have a question of substance for him on his research. He has just mentioned the original position of 21%, and has been clear in saying that what business wants is clarity, so can he give us some clarity? Is it the intention, if there is a future Labour Government, that they will press OECD countries for an increase in that 15% to achieve the 21% that he has been advocating?

[James Murray]

It is always nice to have an intervention from the hon. Gentleman. We very much miss his being in his position on the Government Front Bench. The debate over the OECD agreement has been going on for several years. President Biden wanted 21%, but there was lukewarm support for that from this Government and we ended up with 15%. Our challenge now, frankly, is to make sure that the likes of the hon. Gentleman do not get in the way of its implementation, because we want to see this global deal in place and Britain playing its part.

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention was timely as a reminder of the opposition coming from Conservative Back Benchers. In fact, this is an issue that I have raised with the Treasury Minister before. She might remember that on 7 February I asked her if the Government would keep their promise to implement the multinational top-up tax in the UK this year. We wanted reassurance that the Prime Minister’s weakness in the face of his Back Benchers would not leave us missing out on this landmark global deal. The Minister might recall that she brushed aside concerns that her Back Benchers might oppose these plans, only for concerns to be raised moments later by the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel). The former Home Secretary, who was here earlier, went on to write a piece in The Daily Telegraph on 24 February arguing against the Government’s approach. In that piece, she claimed:

“In the House of Commons, those now turning their attention to all this are beginning to bridle.”

We believe it is crucial to get this legislation in place, so I hope the Minister can reassure us today that those parts of the Bill that introduce a multinational top-up tax will not be bargained away in the face of opposition from Conservative Back Benchers.

A fairer and more certain tax system, underpinned by a long-term economic plan, is crucial to helping businesses invest and grow, but an ambitious plan for growing our economy must go much further, and we have made it clear that this would be Labour’s first mission in government. At the heart of our plan to grow the economy, to create jobs and wealth, and to make everyone in our country better off is the partnership we would build between Government and business. We understand, as do businesses, that growth comes from the Government supporting private enterprises to succeed in the industries of the economy of the future.

That is why our green prosperity plan is so important, as it would provide catalytic public investment to crowd in private sector investment and to grow our clean energy capacity and green industries across the country. We would support growth in the digital economy and the life sciences, we would update our planning system to remove barriers to investment, and we would improve access to capital for new and growing businesses. We would make sure that, under Labour, the Government and business work together and invest together, for the good of everyone in every region and nation of the UK.

This task is urgent, because the world economy is changing and other countries are pulling ahead. According to the CBI, we are investing five times less than Germany, and roughly half of France and the US, in green industries. The Institute of Directors has said that, on its present path

“the UK will find itself left behind in the accelerating race to lead the green economy.”

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said, following the Budget:

“There is little…that enables the UK to compete with the massive packages of support to power a green transition that are available elsewhere.”

From President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act in the US to the programmes coming out of Europe, Asia and Australia, the rest of the world is chasing the opportunities of the future. We need to be in that race too. Once we are, the opportunities will be ours for the taking. Our British businesses already excel in so many sectors and, with the right support, we could be a world leader in the new and growing industries of the future, making full use of our geography, our advantage in high-tech sectors and our world-leading universities.

What British businesses and families need now is a credible, ambitious plan from the Government to grow the economy and to make everyone in every part of our country better off. The failure to do that is perhaps the greatest failure of this Finance Bill and this month’s Budget. The Conservatives have had 13 years, and they have failed. As long as they stay in power, the vicious cycle of stagnation stays too. It is time for a new Government who will get us off this path of managed decline and make sure that people and businesses in Britain succeed.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

James Murray Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 18th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Dame Rosie, for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Opposition. I would like to speak to the amendments and new clauses in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare).

When we debated this Bill’s Second Reading at end of last month, we made it clear that what we needed was a plan to get us out of what the previous Chancellor rightly called a “vicious cycle of stagnation”. We need a plan for growth—a plan to raise the living standards of everyone in every part of the country—but this Government have failed to offer us one. That much was clear from the data published alongside the Budget, which showed that ours is the only G7 economy forecast to shrink this year and that our long-term growth forecasts were downgraded in the Office for Budget Responsibility report.

Since we last debated this Bill, further data has been published confirming our fears. Earlier this month, a report from the International Monetary Fund put the UK’s growth prospects this year at the bottom of those of the G20 biggest economies—a group that includes sanctions-hit Russia. After 13 years of economic failure, people and businesses across the UK deserve so much better than that. They deserve a plan for the economy that offers more than managed decline. So today, we begin by looking at some of the measures the Government are seeking to introduce in this Bill and explaining why their approach is letting Britain down.

First, let me speak to clauses 5 to 15, which address the rate of corporation tax, capital allowances and other reliefs relating to businesses. On those, one thing prized above all else is the need for certainty and stability. Businesses across the country want stability, certainty and a long-term plan, yet under the Conservatives corporation tax has changed almost every year since 2010. Furthermore, as the Resolution Foundation has pointed out, the introduction of the latest temporary regime for corporation tax represents the fifth major change in just two years. It seems that the Conservatives are simply incapable of offering stability.

Let us start by looking at the main rate of corporation tax, which clause 5 sets at 25% for the financial year beginning in April 2024. The clause will mean that corporation tax will continue to be charged at the rate to which it rose at the start of this month. That rate, 25%, was first announced by the Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor, in his spring Budget 2021. One might think that sounds like a rare example of certainty, but, sadly, that is not the case. As we know, last September, the then Chancellor, the one who said our economy was trapped in a “vicious cycle of stagnation”, announced that the rise to 25% would be cancelled, leaving the rate at 19%. That was of course reversed just a month later, when the current Chancellor moved into No. 11, and confirmed that the rise to 25% was back on. So much for stability! But we are where we are, and if we are to assume that the current Chancellor’s plans will indeed go ahead—a bold assumption, I admit—the rise to 25% will now continue from April 2024.

With the rate of corporation tax being increased, it is particularly important to get capital allowances right. The Government should be focused on giving businesses certainty that will help them to plan and increase their investment in the UK economy. We need that certainty and greater investment—the UK currently has the lowest investment as a percentage of GDP in the G7—yet the approach in clause 7 is to introduce temporary full expensing for expenditure on plant and machinery for three years only. By making that change temporary, it only brings forward investment, rather than increasing its level overall. The Government’s own policy paper on this measure, published on the day of the Budget, makes that clear. It says:

“This measure will incentivise businesses to bring forward investment to benefit from the tax relief.”

As the Office for Budget Responsibility has made clear, the Government’s approach will mean that business investment between 2022 and 2028 is essentially unchanged as a result of these measures. If anything, there is a very slight fall. Britain deserves better than this. As Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said in response to this temporary tweak to the tax regime for businesses:

“There’s no stability, no certainty, and no sense of a wider plan.”

That is why we have tabled new clause 3, which would require the Chancellor to follow Labour’s lead by developing a wider plan for business taxes, which we believe is needed. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), the shadow Chancellor has set out—

[Kit Malthouse]

I wish to challenge the hon. Gentleman’s assertion about the notion of a window. We know that where taxation is concerned the creation of a window can often create an incentive to move quickly. For example, when there was a stamp duty window, we saw a significant number of transactions brought forward and take place. The Government are saying that they want to see very significant investment taking place. We know that British industry has accumulated a large amount of cash on its balance sheets. Why would the Government not create a particular incentive by saying, “Look, there is a deadline. If you get in now, we will give you this very generous tax break and then who knows what may happen in the future”? We must not forget that although the investment may absorb all of the profit for small businesses, it will, in effect, create a tax loss that is able to be carried forward beyond the window. So I do not understand his criticism of our having a window if, as the Government say, they want action now rather than in three years’ time.

[James Murray]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention but I feel he rather misses the point. Surely having a temporary change merely moves investment around, rather than increasing its overall level, as the OBR has set out. We have the lowest investment as a percentage of GDP in the G7, so the importance of increasing investment should be agreed by Members in all parts of this House. We need a wider plan that will give that stability and certainty, which is exactly what my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has set out. She has set out Labour’s mission to secure the highest sustained growth in the G7, which means that in government we would review the business tax system and set out a clear road map to provide that certainty and boost investment.

New clause 3 speaks to that, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to join us by voting for it later this evening. It would require the Government to follow our lead by initiating that review of business taxes that we want to see now. Such a review would make recommendations on how to give businesses more certainty about the taxes they need to pay, and how to make sure that the system of capital allowances operates effectively to incentivise investment. The new clause would require the review to be conducted, and recommendations on how to increase certainty and investment to be published, within six months of the current Finance Bill becoming law. I urge Ministers and, indeed, Back Benchers to accept and support new clause 3. If they do not, I at least encourage Ministers to give as much certainty as possible by making it clear what their plans for capital allowances are beyond the three-year period covered by clause 7.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

As well as the economic cost of the way that the windfall tax has been designed, does the shadow Minister agree that it has a massive climate cost, in the sense that we are incentivising oil and gas at exactly the time when we need to make the transition to green energy technologies?

[James Murray]

The hon. Member is right to point that out that, in addition to the points that I have made, the Government’s decision has a climate change impact. It shows, I think, in the design of the windfall tax that investment allowances really should have no place in a proper windfall tax on oil and gas giants’ profits. We want to scrap those investment allowances and to make sure that that money is spent helping people through the cost of living crisis that we face right now. I would very much welcome the hon. Member and any Member on the Conservative Benches joining us in voting for new clause 6, which will force the Government to come clean about how much money they would raise by strengthening the windfall tax—money that could go towards freezing council tax this year.

I have spoken so far about the clauses of the Bill that relate to the main rates of corporation tax, capital allowances and reliefs. I now turn my attention to another important way that the Bill impacts on corporation tax through parts 3 and 4, which relate to the new multinational top-up tax and the related domestic top-up tax. As I set out earlier, we desperately need greater stability and certainty in business taxes and allowances to help the economy grow in the future. We also need greater fairness to help people with the cost of living crisis right now.

That principle of fairness is crucial in making sure that British businesses that pay their fair share of tax face a level playing field when competing with large multinationals that may not do so. That is why we have, for so long, pressed the Government to back an ambitious global minimum tax rate for large multinationals. We have long needed an international deal on a global minimum corporate tax rate to stop the international race to the bottom and to help raise revenue to support British public services. We welcome the international agreement, fostered by the OECD, that makes sure that large multinationals pay a minimum level of 15% tax in each jurisdiction in which they operate.

As I set out on Second Reading, it has been a long and winding path to get to this point. The Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor, was often lukewarm in his support of such an approach. However, the deal now faces a new front of challenges, as Conservative Back Benchers have begun to be open in their hostility towards the implementation of the deal, as we have seen in this place today. We believe that it is crucial to get this legislation in place, so I hope the Minister can reassure us today that those parts of the Bill that introduce a multinational top-up tax will not be bargained away in the face of opposition from Conservative Back Benchers.

On Second Reading, we heard from the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and others as they rallied their colleagues against the global minimum rate of tax for large multinationals. We therefore want to press the Government to make sure that, in the face of opposition from their Back Benchers, they do not back away from implementing this landmark deal.

That is why we have tabled new clause 1, which would require the Chancellor to report every three months for a year on the Government’s progress in supporting the implementation of OECD pillar two rules. The quarterly reports mandated by the new clause would update the House on the Government’s progress towards implementation. Those updates must include details of what efforts the Government have undertaken to make the rules as effective as possible. They must explain what the Government have done to encourage more countries to implement the pillar two rules—a point made by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), who is no longer in her place. This is important because we know that the rules will be more effective the more widely they are implemented. I hope that the Government will support our new clause, which commits them to giving these updates. Surely that is a matter on which we broadly agree. Even if Ministers do not support the new clause, I hope that many Conservative Back Benchers do.

On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Witham expressed her concern that the implementation of the OECD rules had so far progressed with “very limited scrutiny”.

Although I know that she and I, and others on the Conservative Benches, may have very different views on these rules and on what they will achieve, surely she and her fellow Back Benchers will not vote against transparency and will not try to block our new clause that simply requires updates to Parliament every three months.

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman is very kind to give way. Personally, I do not have much concern about transparency in the United Kingdom—we do a fantastic job in that regard. I also have no problem with this country implementing regulations. We tend to have a reputation for gold-plating all our regulations. My concern is that other countries will not do what they say they will do. By enacting this legislation, my concern is that other countries will not do so. The hon. Gentleman has been extolling the virtues of supporting British enterprise, but Labour’s approach runs the risk of putting British companies at a disadvantage, because the United States and other countries may not move forward as we introduce these restrictions. He has talked about transparency, but can he specifically say today that, if the United States does not enact this legislation, the Labour party, whether in Government or not, would support efforts for us to renew or review pressing ahead with our own legislation?

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. At one point, I thought he was starting to speak in favour of our new clause; I got my hopes up momentarily because he referred to the importance of making sure that more countries implement the pillar two rules, and we agree that that is important to make them as effective as possible. Indeed, new clause 1 says that the statements to the House, every three months of the following year, must include details of efforts by the UK Government to encourage more countries to implement the pillar two rules. On that basis, I hope that he will join us in the Lobby to vote for the new clause later this evening.

[Richard Fuller]

rose—

[James Murray]

I am going to make some progress.

Finally, our new clause 2 would require the Government to set out their approach to pillar one of the OECD agreement and the digital services tax. We know that, unlike pillar two, the implementation of which is proceeding both here in the UK and in many countries overseas, the prospects of pillar one being implemented in the near future look less positive. That is likely to have an impact on the Government’s approach to the digital services tax, so I urge the Government to support our new clause, which requires the Chancellor to make a statement to the House on the matter. While new clause 2 has not been selected today, I none the less encourage the Minister to set out the Government’s approach to pillar one and the digital services tax in her closing remarks.

Through today’s debate on the Bill’s clauses and our amendments, we have seen the state that the Government are in. We have seen how they are failing to provide our economy with the stability and certainty that is needed for growth—growth that we need in every part of the country to make everyone, rather than just a few, better off. We have seen how the Government’s Back Benchers risk putting their party before our country at every turn, and how they are unable to provide the long-term plan that people and businesses need. We have seen clearly how this Government are refusing to take fair decisions on taxes—putting up council tax for families across the country, rather than strengthening the windfall tax on oil and gas giants.

When we come to vote at the end of this debate, I urge all hon. Members to support Labour’s new clauses and expose the unfair choices that this Prime Minister and this Conservative Government are making, which are leaving our economy on a path of managed decline.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I rise to speak to the topic at hand, but I want to begin by thanking the Minister for the way in which she has tackled this Committee sitting and her familiarisation with the points made on Second Reading.

I am on the record as having concerns about not just the implementation but the purpose of all this. No one would disagree that multinational companies need to pay their fair share of tax, but I question the way we are going about achieving that. I put it on the record that I was semi-humoured by the comments of the Opposition spokesperson just now. Even when the Labour party is taking a break from its efforts to heap extra burdens on businesses, which is obviously what it stands for, it is raising concerns about implementation timetables.

Labour has missed the opportunity to speak up for British businesses, so it falls to those on the Conservative side of the House to do that. We believe in competition, business growth and business investment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) is not in her place right now, but sectors such as insurance employ my constituents, probably the constituents of the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) and hundreds of thousands of constituents up and down the country. Those are the types of jobs we should try to safeguard in the United Kingdom.

The hon. Gentleman was partisan, so I will make a point now as well: the response of the Labour party is always to build up even more red tape, regulations and reporting. I think we all know how we adopt regulations in this country. My own personal view, which I attested to on Second Reading, is that I would like to have a delay to implementation until we see a critical mass of other countries, including very significant competitors, moving some way towards implementing the tax, as has been said by colleagues this afternoon.

As my hon. Friend the Minister already knows from interventions today and from Second Reading, I feel that this new tax risks placing significant compliance costs on British businesses, which are already paying well above the minimum 15% tax rate. We must recognise that there are current pressures and that these inevitable costs will be fed on to consumers. I have touched on the insurance sector, but at the end of the day it is consumers who will end up picking up the costs through higher premiums and other impacts on them. On top of consumer prices, which bear the brunt of that and are also inflationary, there is no way, given the delays that we are seeing elsewhere, that implementing this tax will not have an impact on our competitiveness. By pressing ahead, we risk capital flight and jeopardising future investment income.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

James Murray Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 19th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

I am sure that the significant number of people—over half a million—who depend on jobs in the financial sector, including in places such as Edinburgh, one of our great financial centres, are listening with consternation to the politics of envy. The hon. Lady singles out individual professions and invites us to set separate tax policies on the basis of a particular profession. That would be entirely wrong. If she had been listening very carefully—I understand that she wanted to get in, because this is a debate and is the opportunity to do so—she would have heard that I was talking about the annual tapered allowance. That is a feature in pensions policy that is there entirely to ensure that it continues to have a progressive nature. A banker who is earning £260,000 a year can get only a reduced amount. They cannot avail themselves of the same annual allowance as the hon. Lady’s friends, colleagues and those she seeks to represent in our public services. I can assure the House that this is not a charter for bankers. In fact, the annual tapered allowance remains unchanged in its operation. We are updating the thresholds here today.

Unless the hon. Lady wishes to withdraw her amendment at this point having heard the strength of our arguments, I will now turn briefly to the remaining clauses that we are debating today, covering collective money purchase pension arrangements and relief relating to net pay arrangements. Collective money purchase is a new type of pension arrangement. Clause 24 will prevent any unintended tax consequences should a collective money purchase scheme wind up. It will ensure that members and their dependants can receive payments and transfer funds without incurring an unauthorised payments tax charge—I do not think that that should be controversial for the House.

Finally, clause 25 relates to the introduction of top-up payments for the lowest earners—another highly progressive measure—who sit within net pay pension schemes. There are two main methods of giving pensions tax relief. Although they provide the same outcomes for most individuals, lower earners can have different levels of take-home pay depending on how their pension scheme is administered for tax purposes, and the Government believe they are right to rectify that.

Clause 25 makes changes to ensure that eligible low-earning individuals whose income sits below their personal allowance receive a taxpayer-funded top-up payment so that they will have broadly similar take-home pay regardless of how their pension scheme is administered for tax purposes. The hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) has tabled some amendments in this respect, and I wrote to him yesterday to provide some of the comfort that I think he was looking for. They were well-intentioned amendments, and I hope that the letter I have sent him gives him some of the satisfaction that he seeks. Fundamentally, we do not disagree with what he is trying to achieve, and it has the support of those who have been agitating for low-income earners. That measure could benefit an estimated 1.2 million low earners who save into an occupational pension under net pay arrangements.

In conclusion, as I have set out, we know that there is a problem that needs to be tackled. It is a fact that individuals are choosing to retire early to prevent incurring pension taxes. The changes today, which have been widely welcomed by sectoral representatives across the economy, will ensure that we can retain our most skilled and experienced workers in all sectors while also simplifying and improving the pension arrangements for millions of households. I therefore urge Members to accept that clauses 18 to 25 should stand part of the Bill.

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Dame Rosie, for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Opposition. I wish to speak in support of the new clauses in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare).

In this debate, we get the chance to discuss something rare: a tax cut from this Government. It is rare to see a tax cut from this Government, because we are so used to seeing tax rises from them—24 tax rises in the past few years. We now face a tax burden in this country that has risen to its highest level in 70 years. This month, people across the country are being hit by a double whammy of Tory tax rises. Freezes to income tax thresholds mean stealth tax rises for working people, while, at the same time, families are being hit by the Tories’ council tax bombshell.

Let me be clear about what these tax rises mean: the Government’s six-year freeze in the personal allowance will take its real value in 2027-28 back down to its 2013-14 level, while this year, council tax for the typical band D property will breach £2,000 for the first time. In the middle of a cost of living crisis, made worse by the Conservatives’ tax rises, one permanent tax cut was announced by the Chancellor in his Budget last month. That tax cut, introduced by the clauses we are debating today, sees £l billion of public money spent to benefit only the 1% with the biggest pension pots. It is an extraordinary way to spend £l billion in the middle of a cost of living crisis, which is still hitting people across this country hard. Ministers may claim that their decision was driven by a desire to get doctors back in work, but it is clear that they could have found a fair, targeted fix for doctors’ pensions at a fraction of the cost. The British Medical Association has said that a targeted doctors’ scheme could cost as little as £32 million to implement. The Conservative Chair of the Treasury Committee has said that even she was surprised that the Government did a blanket cut, rather than a bespoke policy for doctors. That is why we oppose the Government’s plans to abolish the lifetime allowance charge in clause 18 as part of their package of changes covered by clauses 18 to 23.

I wish to spend a few moments addressing clause 25, which covers a separate pensions matter, unrelated to the package of measures that we have concerns about. Clause 25 introduces, as the Minister has said, a scheme of “top-up payments” for low earners contributing to net pay pension schemes who currently miss out on a Government pension savings incentive. We know that tax relief on pension contributions can be given to individual scheme members in two ways: relief at source and net pay arrangements. In the case of the former, even non-taxpayers are given basic rate tax relief, but in the case of the latter they are not. As the Minister said, this is particularly unfair as individual people have no control over which form of scheme their employer chooses. We commend the efforts of the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, along with pension providers, Age UK, the TUC, and others, to campaign for a change to the law, which is culminating in clause 25 before us today.

There are, however, a number of points of detail that we would like to raise with the Minister. To help draw these out, we have tabled amendments, three of which— amendments 27, 28 and 29—have been selected for debate today. I wish to put on record my thanks to the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group for its help in drafting these amendments.



We recognise that, under the measures proposed in clause 25, there is an onus on His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to make payments to eligible individuals. While we hope, of course, that HMRC would always do the right thing, we think individuals should be able to challenge the amount paid if they think it is incorrect. With that in mind, amendment 27 would require HMRC to provide recipients of the relief with a calculation of the payment so that it can be checked. I therefore welcome confirmation from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in a letter sent to me this morning that

“HMRC are already planning to provide customers with details of the payment and how it was calculated.”

I would welcome any further detail on that commitment that the Economic Secretary is able to give in his closing remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Browne]

The hon. Gentleman is making the case for a special NHS-only or doctors-only regime. Does he accept that senior workers in other parts of the public sector are affected by the lifetime pensions allowance? There was already a separate scheme for judges, and we know about the former Director of Public Prosecutions having his own individual scheme, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are senior police officers, senior local authority civil servants, senior Government scientists, air traffic controllers—as we have heard—and other workers across the public sector who are disincentivised from continuing to work by the current regime?

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but the argument we were hearing from hon. Members on both sides of the House was about NHS doctors and keeping them in work. The Chancellor himself, when he was Chair of the Select Committee, said that we needed targeted intervention to help NHS doctors. No one was talking about a wider scheme to affect everyone with the largest pension pots until the Chancellor stood up and made his announcement on Budget day. I respectfully suggest the hon. Gentleman focuses on our amendments in hand and on new clause 5, which suggests that, rather than proceed with a blanket scheme affecting everyone with a pension pot, we should do what I thought there was an emerging consensus around and develop a targeted scheme for NHS doctors.

Otherwise, the Government’s approach fails the critical test for any Government spending—whether they are spending public money wisely. Yet Ministers refuse to entertain the prospect of a targeted scheme for NHS doctors instead. That is why we have tabled new clause 5, which would require the Chancellor to make recommendations on what a scheme targeted at NHS doctors would look like. We believe that is a crucial question to be answered. I hope that any Conservative Members, including the hon. Gentleman, who are concerned about spending public money wisely, getting value for money and supporting our NHS, will vote for new clause 5 in the Division Lobby later.

[Anthony Browne]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Murray]

No; I am going to make some progress. The hon. Gentleman has intervened quite a lot and I am looking forward to his speech, as I am sure everyone in the Committee is.

When the Economic Secretary responds, I would be grateful if he could address the points set out by new clause 4, in particular by giving some much-needed clarity on the scale of the impact the Government expect their changes to pension allowances to have. Can he tell us how many people are expected to stay in work or return to work as a result of these policies? What sectors do they work in? How many of them are NHS doctors? Those are important questions, yet it has been hard to get exact answers from Ministers. The Office of Budget Responsibility has said the changes to pension contribution allowances will increase employment by around 15,000, but Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that figure is “optimistic”.

When the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was asked on Second Reading of this Bill how many doctors would stay in the NHS because of these measures, she confidently quoted Department of Health and Social Care statistics that around 22,000 senior NHS clinicians would have been expected to exceed the £40,000 annual allowance this year. However, she may not have known that, at the very same time, the permanent secretary who oversees Government spending was appearing before the Treasury Committee, where the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) was asking her questions. When asked about the evidence on how many of those 22,000 NHS clinicians would have been discouraged from working by the cap, she said the evidence was “mixed” and that they would need to do further evaluation.

It seems clear that the Government simply do not know how many people will be brought back into work as a result of their changes to pension tax-free allowances. They certainly do not know how many NHS doctors will come back into work, and they have clearly failed to do the thinking on how a bespoke approach for NHS doctors could operate.

That is why we oppose the Conservatives’ pension changes and why we will be voting for a fair fix for doctors’ pensions to get them back into work. We will be voting to spend public money wisely. We will be voting against a Government who choose to cut tax for the richest 1%, while pushing up stealth taxes and council tax on working people across the country.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I declare an interest, as I am in the parliamentary pension scheme and I think I am one of the older people in the Chamber today. Indeed, I am old enough to remember when the shadow Health and Social Care Secretary, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), was musing about getting rid of the lifetime allowance—a matter of a few weeks ago, before the Government did it.

Doctors in Poole have said to me clearly over a number of years that at a certain stage of their career they have all the skills, but when they work they get annual bills, and when they look at their lifetime allowance it makes sense for them to retire. The tax policy of the lifetime allowance and the annual allowance have been improving the golfing skills of GPs and hospital doctors, because they get to a point where, if they do the extra work, they are penalised by the tax system and they say, “Why should I do this?” Many still do it, but it is totally wrong that we have a tax policy that discriminates against people who want to work and want to use their skills.

One key thing that the Government have done is put billions into the national health service to catch up with the backlog. If we are putting billions in and want productivity in our hospitals to improve, it is totally inconsistent to have a tax system in which the key people leading teams and doing tests find that it is a disadvantage for them to work. We will never get the lists down if people feel that they are penalised for working hard, and many want to work hard. I have talked to doctors since the changes, and the evidence in my constituency is that some have decided to delay their retirements, which they had already put in for, while others who had retired are now coming back to work part-time. The main improvements will be higher productivity and more patients being seen. I do not know whether there will be a massive advantage for doctors, but there will be for patients, because at the end of the day, there are people waiting to have tests and operations, and this will make the national health service rather more productive that it would otherwise be.

Also, because many early-retirement doctors will now stay working, they will continue to receive salaries and pay tax at the normal rate. I am somewhat sceptical about the £1 billion cost because, if significant numbers of people stay in our hospitals, they will ultimately continue to pay taxes and many of them are higher-rate taxpayers. The key point is that we have to focus on the patients, not on the providers of services. If the providers of services can work and have incentives to work, we will get through more patients, which is what people in this House want.

It is difficult to focus on the national health service alone. There are the anomalies not only of general practitioners—I come across general practitioners well into their 50s and nearing retirement who work only three days a week because of the tax system, and this measure will help them—but of dentists. We all get people writing to us about a shortage of dentists—particularly NHS dentists—and unless we fix these problems, which are pushing experienced dentists into early retirement, our constituents will not get the services that they need.

As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) pointed out, many other high-skilled, high-paid public sector jobs are impossible for managers to manage because the people undertaking those tasks are penalised either by a big tax bill each year, or by the difficulty of seeing their lifetime allowances used, so there is no great incentive for them to continue working. If we have a problem in this country, it is one of productivity. This tax change improves productivity. If we improve productivity in people-facing services, such as those provided by dentists and doctors, the people waiting for those services will clearly be more and better looked after by the system.

When the Conservative party came into office, the lifetime allowance was £1.8 million, which was a significant sum 14 years ago. The reason it was reduced was that there was a suspicion that City slickers were putting millions into pension funds and not paying any tax. In reality, it has come down too far and is hitting people who we need to provide the skills that they have trained for over years. Doctors spend years training and decades getting experience, but at the time when they are needed most—to deal with the waiting list—they find that the pension system is forcing them into retirement or to play golf. What the Government have done is sensible.

I do not accept the figures from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray). The main benefit of the changes will be for those in the health service, but we cannot differentiate between one person providing one skill and somebody else providing some other skill. From that point of view, the tax system has to be neutral. If we get into a position in which the more worthy people pay less tax, we may as well be saying, “Why should anybody in the NHS pay tax? Why not just give them a free ride?” That is an argument without a great deal of thought behind it. We have to have a neutral tax system without the Government trying to second guess about the public or private sector, or whether doctors are more worthy than others.

I think that the Government have done quite a brave thing, and it was the right thing to do. Government is about taking the right decisions, even if they are not always the most popular. They are the right decisions to provide better medical care for our constituents and to get the NHS backlog down. Of course, one of the Prime Minister’s key pledges is to do just that. This is one measure that will enable that by letting people work longer, harder and more productively.

Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting)

James Murray Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th May 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Victoria Atkins]

Clause 1 legislates the charge for income tax for 2023-24. Clauses 2 and 3 set the main, default and savings rates of income tax for 2023-24 and clause 4 maintains the starting rate for savings nil rate band for tax year 2023-24.

Before I get into the meat of these clauses, it might help to remind hon. Members that, as I have already said, because some measures in the Bill have already been debated on the Floor of the House, many measures will not be debated here in this Public Bill Committee. There is no mystery as to why some clauses are not appearing.

Income tax is one of the most important revenue streams for the Government, expected to raise approximately £268 billion in 2023-24. These clauses are legislated annually in the Finance Bill. Clause 1 is essential; it allows for income tax to be collected in order to fund the vital public services on which we all rely. Clause 2 ensures that the main rates of income tax for England and Northern Ireland continue at 20% for the basic rate, 40% for the higher rate and 45% for the additional rate.

Clause 3 sets the default and savings rates of income tax for the whole of the UK. The starting rate in clause 4 applies to the taxable savings income of individuals with low earned incomes of less than £17,570, allowing them to benefit from up to £5,000 of savings income free of tax. Clause 4 will maintain the starting rate limit at its current level of £5,000 for 2023-24, in order to ensure simplicity and fairness within the tax system while maintaining a generous tax relief. Clauses 3 and 4 are important pillars of the Government’s savings strategy, because we wish to help those with low earned income to save.

In addition to the starting rate whereby eligible individuals can earn up to £5,000 in savings income free of tax, savers are supported by the personal savings allowance, which provides up to £1,000 of tax-free savings income for basic rate taxpayers. Savers can also continue to benefit from the annual ISA allowance of £20,000. Taken together, those generous measures result in around 95% of savers paying no tax on their savings income.

Finally, the Government’s efforts to encourage those on the lowest incomes to save include the Help to Save scheme, which provides savers with a 50% bonus on their savings. The Government have recently extended the scheme while we consult on longer-term options to continue to support low-income savers, which is a good example of our commitment to levelling up opportunity across the whole country. I hope that Committee members feel able to promote the scheme to their constituents, and I encourage them to do so. We are committed to helping people of all incomes, at all stages of life, to save. Recent reforms, coupled with the significant increase to the starting rate limit in 2015, mean that the taxation arrangements for savings income are very generous.

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee with you as Chair, Ms McVey. As we heard from the Minister, clause 1 imposes a charge to income tax for 2023-24. It is a formality in every Finance Bill, which provides the legal basis for Parliament to impose an annual income tax. Of course, we will not oppose that clause. Clause 2 provides the main rates of income tax for 2023-24, which will apply to the non-savings, non-dividend income of taxpayers in England and Northern Ireland. As the Minister said, the rates include the 20% basic rate, the 40% higher rate and the 45% additional rate.

With respect to the other nations of the UK, the explanatory notes make it clear that income tax rates on non-savings, non-dividend income for Welsh taxpayers are set by the Welsh Parliament. The UK main rates of income tax are reduced for Welsh taxpayers by 10p in the pound on that income. The Welsh Parliament sets the Welsh rates of income tax, which are then added to the reduced UK rates. Income tax rates and thresholds on non-savings, non-dividend income for Scottish taxpayers are set by the Scottish Parliament. We do not oppose clause 2. However, the income tax rates within it will interact with the level of personal allowance and relevant thresholds to determine how much income tax people pay. I will briefly ask the Minister about them.

Committee members will remember that in the March 2021 Budget, and in the Finance Act that followed, the then Chancellor—now Prime Minister—froze the basic rate limit and personal allowance for income tax for four years. In the recent autumn statement 2022, and in the following Finance Act, the current Chancellor extended those freezes by a further two years. That means that the current 2023-24 tax year is the second of a six-year freeze. The Office for Budget Responsibility has made clear, in its March 2023 economic and fiscal outlook, that the Government’s six-year freeze in the personal allowance will take its real value in 2027-28 back down to the level in 2013-14. When the Minister responds, I would be grateful if she could confirm whether she accepts that conclusion from the Office for Budget Responsibility.

As we have heard, clause 3 sets the default rates and saving rates of income tax for the year 2023-24. Clause 3 specifically sets the default rates that will apply to the non-savings, non-dividend income of taxpayers who are not subject to the main rates of income tax, Welsh rates of income tax or Scottish income tax. It also sets the savings rates that will apply to savings income of all UK taxpayers. We will not be opposing the measure.

Finally, clause 4 sets the starting rate limit for savings for 2023-24, which remains at £5,000, as we heard. As we know, the starting rate for savings can apply to an individual’s taxable savings income, which includes—but is not limited to—interest on deposits with banks or building societies. The extent to which an individual’s savings income is liable to tax at the starting rate for savings, rather than the basic rate of income tax, depends on their total non-savings income, which can include income from employment, profits from self-employment, pensions income, and so on.

If an individual’s non-savings income is more than their personal allowance plus the starting rate limit for savings, the starting rate is not available for that tax year. Where an individual’s non-savings income in a tax year is less than the personal allowance plus the starting rate limit, their savings income is taxable at the starting rate up to the starting rate limit. We will also not be opposing clause 4.

As I have set out, we will not be opposing any of the four clauses in this first grouping of the debate, but I look forward to the Minister’s response on my specific point about the Office for Budget Responsibility.

[The Chair]

I call Dame Angela Eagle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

Clauses 16 and 17 make changes to improve two of the tax-advantaged employee share schemes. Clause 16 increases the generosity and availability of the company share option plan, or CSOP. The changes will help larger companies that have grown beyond the scope of the enterprise management incentive—EMI—scheme, to offer more attractive share-based remuneration, helping them to recruit and retain the key talent that they need to succeed and grow. Clause 17 makes changes to the provisions of the enterprise management incentives. Those changes will simplify the process to grant options under an EMI scheme, and remove some of the administrative burdens on participating companies.

CSOP is available to all UK companies wishing to offer their employees share options, but the EMI scheme is specifically targeted at small and medium enterprises. It helps them to compete with larger firms to attract and retain key talent by bolstering the attractiveness of the share-based remuneration they can offer to their employees. At Budget 2021, the Government published a call for evidence to seek views on whether the EMI scheme should be expanded. At spring statement 2022, they announced that it remains effectively and appropriately targeted. However, they also expanded the review to consider whether CSOP could support companies as they grow beyond the scope of EMI. Following the review, we decided that CSOP should be expanded to make it more generous and accessible to a broader base of companies, including scale-ups that are no longer eligible for EMI.

The Government also listened to those who said that the administrative requirements of the EMI scheme could be improved, particularly in relation to the process of granting options. That is an example for the hon. Member for Aberdeen North of the public-facing nature of our efforts in drafting this Bill. We are making these changes to address those concerns.

The changes made by clause 16 will increase the CSOP employee share options limit from £30,000 to £60,000 and allow future changes to the share option limit to be made by regulations. The “worth having” condition will be removed, allowing more share types, and therefore companies, to be included in the scheme. Clause 17 will remove two administrative requirements within EMI. The first is the requirement to include within the option agreement details of any restrictions on the shares to be acquired under the option, as those restrictions are typically set out in other documents. The second is the requirement for an employee who receives an EMI option to sign a declaration that they meet the EMI working time requirement. The clause will not remove the working time requirement itself, which is a key part of the scheme. These sensible changes will reduce the burdens on companies granting EMI options, saving them time and money and reducing the risk that tax relief is lost due to administrative oversights.

The changes to EMI will support an estimated 4,700 small and medium-sized companies, and an estimated 45,000 employees who are granted EMI options annually. The changes will apply to both schemes granted on or after 6 April 2023, and options granted before 6 April 2023 that have not yet been exercised.

Clause 16 will improve the company share option plan, making it more accessible and generous, which will support businesses to recruit and retain key staff. Clause 17 will improve the enterprise management incentives scheme by simplifying the process to grant options, and will support small and medium-sized businesses to recruit and retain the talent they need to succeed. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[James Murray]

As the Minister said, clause 16 makes changes to the company share option plan, a tax-advantaged employee share scheme available to all UK companies and their employees. It will double the employee share options limit from £30,000 to £60,000; remove the “worth having” condition, which limits which types of shares are eligible for inclusion within a CSOP scheme; and make changes to the share options limit, which will now be achievable through secondary rather than primary legislation.

We understand from the Government’s policy paper that this measure seeks to support companies to attract talent and to grow by expanding the availability and generosity of CSOP. They hope to allow companies to offer their employees a greater stake in the company so employees can share in their employer’s success. The changes will help companies that have grown beyond the scope of the enterprise management incentives scheme to offer more attractive share-based remuneration, supporting them to recruit and retain talent. These changes to CSOP were announced not by the Chancellor at the spring Budget 2023, but by the previous Chancellor in September 2022, so it seems we have found one of the very few remaining measures from last autumn’s so-called growth plan.

Although the Minister has set out the details of what this measure involves, I would like to ask her to explain some of the detail behind its operational impact, set out in HMRC’s policy paper. In the section on operational impact, it says that a small IT change will be required to support delivery of the measure, which will be expected to cost less than £5,000. It also says that, due to the relaxation and increased generosity of the CSOP rules, HMRC will undertake increased compliance activity to ensure CSOP is being used appropriately. It says that additional resource will be dedicated to compliance work to support the effective delivery and implementation of this measure, and that this resource is expected to cost a total of £570,000.

Will the Minister confirm whether the additional resource dedicated to that compliance work will be additional net resource at HMRC, or will it involve any redeployment of resources? If the latter is true, will she explain the expected impact on other work carried out by HMRC? We know from a recent Public Accounts Committee report that £9 billion in tax revenue was lost during the pandemic because 4,000 HMRC staff fighting tax avoidance were redeployed. We therefore believe it is important to ask questions about any such potential redeployment. I look forward to a clear answer from the Minister on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

Yes, Ms McVey; the trip to John Lewis will have to come later. I am helpfully informed that, as set out in the TIIN, the additional resource will be dedicated to compliance work to support effective delivery and implementation of the measure. That is expected, as the hon. Member for Ealing North said, to cost a total of £570,000, but we will write to him with further details in due course.

[James Murray]

I appreciate the Minister reading out the information from the policy note, which I also read and quoted during my speech. The question I was specifically asking, just to make sure there is no confusion at all, was whether the additional resource that she referred to—the £570,000 resource that is dedicated to compliance work—will be additional net resource at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, or will it involve any existing resource at HMRC being redeployed? If the latter, will the Minister set out—in writing, I presume—what impact the redeployment will have on other work carried out by HMRC?

[Victoria Atkins]

I am mindful that when the hon. Member asked me quite a technical question in a Statutory Instrument Committee recently, he misunderstood my response and raised a point of order that turned out to be wrong. I had to correct him on the record and with a letter to the Library, so I am pleased to be able to write to him on this matter to ensure that I have answered his question and that he understands the answer.

[James Murray]

Maybe you’ll get it right this time.

[Victoria Atkins]

I got it right. That was the point. He raised a point of order that was wrong.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26

Payments under Jobs Growth Wales Plus

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

[Victoria Atkins]

The clause clarifies that payments made under the Welsh Government’s Jobs Growth Wales Plus scheme are exempt from income tax, with retrospective effect from 1 April 2022. The scheme was introduced by the Welsh Government on 1 April last year to replace traineeships and Jobs Growth Wales. The changes made by the clause will exempt from income tax payments made by way of training allowances under the scheme. Without the clause, the payments would be taxable, which would not be in line with the treatment of payments made for other training allowances.

[James Murray]

As we have heard, the clause introduces an income tax exemption for payments made by way of training allowances under the Jobs Growth Wales Plus scheme, which the Welsh Government introduced on 1 April 2022 to replace the traineeships and Jobs Growth Wales programmes in Wales. This is a training and employment programme aimed at 16 to 18-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training, and is designed to help them overcome any barriers that they may face in further training or employment.

As I understand it, the scheme has three strands: engagement, advancement and employment. Under the engagement strand, participants receive a training allowance of up to £30 a week; under the advancement strand, they receive £55 a week, and under the employment strand, individuals will be paid at national minimum wage for the age group. We understand that the training allowances paid under the scheme will be exempt from income tax. That was announced by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in a written ministerial statement on 11 October last year. The objective of the measure is to clarify the tax treatment payments made by way of training allowances under the Jobs Growth Wales Plus scheme, and it will have retrospective effect from 1 April last year. We will not oppose the measure.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Will the Minister clarify how the payment has been treated in the interim period? I understand that back in October the Government announced their intention to treat it as exempt from income tax, but what has happened to the payments made since 1 April last year? Have the individuals been liable for income tax during that period? Will repayments or tax adjustments be required for those individuals because of the retrospective nature of the measure? Will the Government provide some clarity on how they intend to tackle those things to ensure that everybody has certainty about their tax treatment—that the individual who pays income tax has certainty about their tax treatment and that devolved Governments, when they are putting in place any of the allowances, are certain about the relevant income tax treatment in advance? We do not want uncertainty around something that is supposed to be positive for individuals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

The clause makes changes to support foster carers by increasing the amount of income tax relief available to them and ensuring that that relief stays at an appropriate level over time in line with inflation. We are nearly doubling the qualifying care relief threshold, which will give a tax cut to a qualifying carer worth an average of £450 a year. I know that hon. Members are particularly interested in supporting foster carers, who are real public servants, in looking after looked-after children.

Qualifying care relief has been unchanged since 2003. Many carers are now paying income tax on payments intended to represent the additional costs of fostering that qualifying care relief was intended to exempt. Minimum fostering allowances are set to rise by 12.4% in this financial year, and with current tax threshold freezes, current qualifying care relief levels are expected to push approximately 1,500 carers into tax, which could disincentivise care. We are seeking to reflect the higher allowances that are paid to carers and the higher costs of caring compared with when the relief was set originally. By linking the value of the relief to inflation, the measure will also help to ensure that the level of qualifying care relief remains appropriate over time, supporting carers now and in the future. This will help to provide a greater financial incentive for carers to join or stay in the care industry, improving the recruitment and retention of carers in the future.

The measure increases the amount of income tax relief available for foster carers across the UK and shared lives carers using qualifying care relief from £10,000 to £18,140 per year, plus £375 to £450 per week for each person cared for. Those thresholds will be index linked to the consumer prices index. That will benefit more than 33,000 individuals who receive care income in respect of foster caring and other types of care and who currently submit self-assessment returns; such people look after an estimated 58,000 foster children.

We expect to take most care income out of tax by providing a higher level of relief. It will have simplification benefits, because it will allow more carers to use the simpler method of completing their self-employment pages on their self-assessment return. I hope that that will be a welcome improvement to the tax position of foster carers and shared lives carers. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[James Murray]

As the Minister says, the clause increases the annual amount of care income that a recipient of qualifying care relief will receive that is not subject to income tax. Furthermore, the clause provides for the annual amount to increase in subsequent tax years in line with CPI. We know that qualifying care relief allows carers who look after children or adults, including foster carers, shared lives carers and kinship carers, to receive certain payments tax free, up to an annual limit. We know that the annual limit comprises a fixed amount for each household, plus a weekly amount for each child or adult being cared for.

Qualifying care relief is a tax simplification providing specific tax relief for care income as a replacement for apportioning and calculating full deductions for expenses. The relief allows carers to keep simpler records for their care activities and to use a simpler method of filling in the self-employed pages of their tax returns, as the Minister mentioned. We recognise that the clause increases the fixed and weekly amounts making up the annual limit to bring more carers out of income tax and simplify their tax reporting responsibilities. It also introduces CPI indexation.

We welcome the fact that the clause could provide a greater financial incentive for carers to join or stay in the care industry, potentially improving the recruitment and retention of carers in the future, so we will not oppose it.

[Kirsty Blackman]

First, given the inflation that we are facing, it is incredibly important that people who are caring, and taking on caring responsibilities, can afford to do so and are not forced to stop because of an impact on their income. This is a positive step. A not insignificant number of those who are cared for face a specific issue, such access to special diets, for which inflation has increased much more than even for food inflation. Individuals caring for anybody who is on a special diet will have seen a differentially large impact on their household spend specifically as a result of having to cater for those special diets. The changes being made therefore could not have come at a better time.

It is also positive to hear recognition for kinship carers, who are so often missed out in conversations about caring, even if people are taking on a formal role as kinship carers. We could not do without the significant amount of work that kinship carers do, so I am pleased, having previously had to argue in my council role for similar benefits for kinship carers as those that foster carers were receiving, that the Government have as a matter of course included kinship carers in the qualifying care relief, and ensured that the changes being made extend to them.

--- Later in debate ---

Part 3 of the schedule removes the default basic rate and dividend ordinary rate of tax that applies to the first £1,000 slice of income for accumulation trusts and discretionary trusts. Reducing the number of tax rates in this way will make tax calculations more straightforward. It also avoids complications with the new tax-free limit, which is better targeted at low-income trusts. The change will take about 8,000 trusts and estates out of income tax and reporting, and simplify how tax applies to bereaved beneficiaries.

[James Murray]

As we have heard from the Minister, clause 29 introduces schedule 2, which makes provisions relating to the taxation of estates in administration and trusts. We understand that the clause implements the Government’s response to the “Income tax: Low income trusts and estates” consultation conducted by HMRC between April and July 2022. The response was published at the time of the spring Budget. The clause seeks to legislate for an existing concession on the administration of tax for trusts and estates.

We will not oppose this measure, but I ask the Minister to address concerns raised by the Chartered Institute of Taxation about the impact of this clause on trusts. It believes that the legislation takes a practical approach on estates, which will benefit both the personal representatives of the deceased and their beneficiaries. However, it believes there is less simplification in respect of trusts with low incomes, and that for some people, the administrative burden will actually increase. The institute has concerns about the way that trust income is taxed in two stages. First, the trustees report the trust’s income and pay tax on it. Secondly, when income is distributed to beneficiaries, they must report the income and pay any tax that remains due after credit has been given for the tax that was taken at the first stage.

The Chartered Institute of Taxation draws attention to the fact that although a £500 threshold, like that for estates income, is applied to the income accruing to the trustees of a settlement, that does not exempt the income in the hands of the beneficiaries. Where trustees have no liability to report or pay, basic rate taxpayers will have to pay the basic rate tax due on their income from the trust. Currently, they may not be filing a tax return at all, as their basic rate liability will have been met by the tax deducted by the trustees; this measure may mean that they now have to file a tax return. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that point, and would be grateful for a response to CIOT’s concern that this measure, while described as a simplification, could impact on often vulnerable beneficiaries receiving modest amounts of income, who will now have greater compliance burdens.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I have a quick question on Government amendment 4. Will it change the application of schedule 2 and proposed new schedule 1C to the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992, or does it simply clarify what is intended anyway under those schedules? The amendment specifically mentions the property not being held for pensions purposes. I am trying to understand whether that was the original intention, or whether the amendment changes the intent of schedule 2 and of schedule 1 to the TCGA.

[Victoria Atkins]

On the simplification point, the replacement of the lower-rate band with the new tax-free amount supports our long-standing goal of a modern and simpler tax system. This is a simplification for low-income discretionary trusts, as income within the tax-free amount will no longer be taxed as it arises. The change also simplifies calculations when income distributions are made. The consultation last year outlined that where discretionary trusts make income distributions, the existing 45% credit given to beneficiaries with that income would remain, as would the continued need for trustees to top up their payments to HMRC to match that credit when the distribution is made. I am told that the Chartered Institute of Taxation agreed with that proposition, and the Association of Taxation Technicians saw that as largely a question of timing and did not see a particular issue with the principle.

The hon. Member for Ealing North asked about vulnerable beneficiary trusts. The measures are a simplification for those trusts, as for any other low-income trust, as there will no longer be the need to elect to have income taxed as if for vulnerable beneficiaries. Instead, the income will simply not be taxed as it arises. Most vulnerable beneficiary trusts are, indeed, discretionary trusts, and as I said earlier, both the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Association of Taxation Technicians have opined on this. The measure does not affect the need for trust beneficiaries to consider their tax reliability on their trust income. On the hon. Member for Aberdeen North’s question, the amendment clarifies our intentions.

[James Murray]

I thank the Minister for her response to my point. For clarity, my understanding of the Chartered Institute of Taxation’s point was that where trustees have no liability to report or pay, the beneficiaries, if they are basic-rate taxpayers, may still have basic rate income tax due on their income from the trust. I may have misunderstood, but did she say that beneficiaries will not be liable to income tax? Can she clarify that point?

[Victoria Atkins]

I will repeat exactly what I said for the hon. Gentleman, slowly: the measure does not affect the need for trust beneficiaries to consider their tax reliability on trust income that they receive.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2

Estates in administration and trusts

Amendment made: 4, in schedule 2, page 291, line 38, at end insert—

“(za) the property comprised in the settlement is not held for a pensions purpose within the meaning of paragraph 7(3) of Schedule 1C to TCGA 1992 (property comprised in settlements held for a pensions purpose);”—(Victoria Atkins.)

This amendment would mean that a pensions settlement could not be a “qualifying settlement” for the purposes of section 24B of the Income Tax Act 2007 (being inserted by the Bill) or a “relevant settlement” in respect of which the conditions in subsection (9) of that section could be met.

Clause 30

Transfer of basic life assurance and general annuity business

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

[Victoria Atkins]

Clauses 30 and 31 address two issues concerning the tax rules that deal with reinsurance of a specific type of long-term insurance business known as basic life assurance and general annuity business, or more commonly, BLAGAB. Clauses 32 and 33 address the corporation tax and pension tax consequences that will arise from proposed new schedule 12 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which amends the procedure for a court-ordered write-down of an insurer’s liabilities when an insurer is in financial distress.

Clauses 30 and 31 were originally announced by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in a written ministerial statement on 15 December 2022 and applied with effect from that date. They address the risk of both tax loss and unfair outcomes for insurers that could otherwise arise from commercial transfers of BLAGAB from one insurer to another.

Insurers writing BLAGAB are charged corporation tax under the “income minus expenses” basis of taxation, which seeks to tax the shareholder profits and the policyholder investment return together as a single taxable amount. When a BLAGAB book is reinsured prior to the transfer of a business, the shareholder profit and policyholder investment return become separated and are taxed differently, which could result in a tax mismatch. Clauses 32 and 33 prevent unintended tax consequences arising for both the insurer and individuals in the event of a court-directed write-down, which will help to ensure that such write-downs are a viable option to insurers in financial difficulty.

Clause 30 addresses a possible tax mismatch arising from the rules applying to the reinsurance of BLAGAB, which can result in a loss of corporation tax when a court-approved transfer of BLAGAB is preceded by reinsurance. In that situation, the clause classifies and taxes the reinsured business as BLAGAB in the hands of the reinsurer, ensuring that profits are taxed on a consistent basis. By protecting the Exchequer in such a way, this measure will increase receipts by £50 million to £60 million per annum.

Clause 31 addresses an industry concern that the current scope of the legislation, which treats certain sums received under a reinsurance contract as taxable income, may be unnecessarily wide and is blocking commercial transactions. It amends section 92 of the Finance Act 2012 so that it does not apply where substantially all the insurance risks of a book of BLAGAB are reassumed by a reinsurer.

Clause 32 addresses the corporation tax consequences that could otherwise arise when an insurer’s liabilities are written down under proposed new section 377A of the Finance Services and Markets Act 2000, and when there is any subsequent write-up under proposed new section 377I of FSMA. Without the clause, any release of liabilities could lead to an undesirable additional tax charge, which would reduce the balance sheet benefits of the write-down. The changes therefore help to ensure that the ailing insurer avoids insolvency. The clause also prevents the insurer from claiming a tax deduction where a write-down order is subsequently varied or terminated, which ensures that when an insurer recovers, the overall impact of the clause is tax neutral.

Clause 33 will extend the circumstances in which a pre-6 April 2015 lifetime annuity or a dependants annuity under a registered pension scheme can be reduced under a section 377A write-down without incurring unauthorised payments charges. This will ensure that those who receive financial services compensation scheme top-up payments, following a write-down under proposed new section 217ZA of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, will not face a tax disadvantage.

These clauses address a possible mismatch within the life insurance tax rules and clarify the scope of existing legislation, facilitating commercial transactions and protecting vital Exchequer revenue. They also ensure that write-down orders are a viable option for insurers in financial distress, and do not cause any additional tax liability for either the insurer or the individuals who hold policies with those insurers. I therefore recommend that the clauses stand part of the Bill.

[James Murray]

As we have heard, clause 30 applies to reinsurers of specific types of long-term insurance businesses known as basic life assurance and general annuity businesses, or BLAGAB. This is a technical change that addresses a tax mismatch in the life insurance rules where reinsurance precedes a transfer of BLAGAB. In that situation, the clause classifies the reinsured business as BLAGAB in the hands of the reinsurer.

We recognise that when books of life insurance policies are transferred between insurers, the economic transfer is typically effected by a reinsurance contract, pending court approval of the transfer. That gives the purchaser the economic benefits of the acquisition immediately. As we know, a tax mismatch can arise, as the profits from the business are initially taxed in the hands of the cedant as BLAGAB, then in the hands of the reinsurer as non-BLAGAB and, finally, after the business transfer scheme occurs, in the hands of the reinsurer as BLAGAB once again. A loss of tax can occur if a non-BLAGAB trade loss arises for the reinsurer and is offset against total profits or surrendered as group relief. The clause resolves that anomaly by ensuring that any profits or losses from the reinsured business that arise to the reinsurer are within BLAGAB. The ensuing result is that any trade profit or loss in the reinsurer will be subject to the BLAGAB rules, which accordingly brings the tax treatment of the reinsurer in line with the seller of the business.

We will not oppose this measure. For completeness, however, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm the Exchequer impact of the measure, as it was not included in the original policy paper published on 15 December last year. We recognise that, as the policy paper points out, a consultation was not conducted due to the risk of forestalling. We also recognise that the amendments to eliminate the possibility of a mismatch will apply from 15 December last year, regardless of when the reinsurance contract was entered into.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

Clause 34 and schedule 3 make changes to the corporate interest restriction and connected rules in order to protect Exchequer revenue, remove unfair outcomes and reduce administrative burdens for businesses. Clause 35 and schedule 4 amend tax rules for real estate investment trusts, qualifying asset-holding companies, and overseas collective investment vehicles that invest in UK property.

On clause 34, the UK’s corporate interest restriction rules prevent groups from using financing expenses to erode their UK tax base, where those expenses are not aligned with a group’s UK taxable activities. The Government estimate that the rules have increased corporation tax receipts by over £1 billion per annum since they were introduced in April 2017. The rules can be complex because they operate at both worldwide group and individual entity level. Therefore, on their introduction, the Government committed to keeping the rules under review, and in July last year HMRC set up an external working group to consult on proposed amendments to address issues raised by businesses and their advisers.

Following that consultation, we are introducing clause 34 and schedule 3 to make a total of 21 amendments to the corporate interest restriction and related rules limiting deductions for finance costs. There are five changes that protect the Exchequer’s position. I will not go through all five, but they include ensuring that groups cannot reallocate amounts of disallowed financing costs to reduce or eliminate a corporation tax inaccuracy penalty for careless or deliberate errors, and confirming that groups containing charities cannot benefit from tax relief for financing costs incurred in respect of tax-exempt activities. In most cases, the changes implemented by the Bill will take effect for periods of account starting on or after 1 April 2023.

The Government have also tabled amendment 5, which concerns the definition of an insurance company for the purpose of the corporate interest restriction rules. The amendment ensures that the legislation has the desired effect, and I am told that it is supported by the Association of British Insurers.

At Budget 2020, we launched a review of UK investment funds’ taxation and regulatory rules. That led to the introduction of a new tax regime for qualifying asset-holding companies in April last year. Clause 35 and schedule 4 make targeted changes to that regime, to address issues raised by industry. They also make reforms to other tax regimes for investment vehicles that invest in UK property.

There are many changes, including, first, to amend the “genuine diversity of ownership” condition in the tax regimes for qualifying asset-holding companies and real estate investment trusts, as well as the non-resident capital gains tax rules that apply to overseas collective investment vehicles. The second group of changes make targeted amendments to the REIT rules, to address issues raised by industry following a call for input in April 2021. They remove unnecessary constraints and administrative burdens. The third group of changes make amendments to the qualifying asset-holding companies regime, making it more widely available to investment fund structures that fall within its intended scope.

It is right that, after six years, the Government review the corporate interest restriction rules and address issues brought to our attention. That is what these clauses and schedules serve to deliver.

[James Murray]

As we have heard, clause 34 and schedule 3 make amendments in connection with the corporate interest restriction and predecessor legislation, to ensure that the rules work as intended. As we know, the corporate interest restriction rules superseded part 7 of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010, commonly referred to as the debt cap. The aim of the rules has been to restrict the ability of large businesses to reduce their taxable profits through excessive UK finance costs. Amendments were made to the corporate interest restriction rules in the Finance Acts of 2018, 2019 and 2021, to address various technical issues in order to ensure that the rules operated as intended. In July 2022, a working group was formed to consider proposed amendments to the rules, following further representations from customers, tax advisers and representative bodies regarding unfair outcomes. It was announced at the Budget that the Government would make a number of modifications to the rules, and clause 34 implements those modifications.

We will not oppose clause 34, but I would be grateful if the Minister could give some sense of the scale of the benefit that the changes are likely to bring to businesses or the Exchequer. The policy paper for the measure begins:

“This measure addresses a number of issues to protect the Exchequer and reduce unfair outcomes or high administrative burdens.”

However, in the detail, it states:

“This measure is expected to have a negligible impact on the Exchequer…This measure will have a negligible impact on an estimated 6,800 groups,”

and

“This measure is expected overall to have no impact on business’ experience of dealing with HMRC as the proposals do not significantly change any processes or administrative obligations.”

The policy paper therefore sets out at several points the view that the measure has no impact or, at most, a negligible impact. I would be grateful if the Minister could help us to square those statements with the aim of the measure. For instance, can she explain how the policy paper can claim at one point that the measure will “reduce...high administrative burdens,” yet also conclude that

“the proposals do not significantly change any processes or administrative obligations”?

Clause 35 and schedule 4 update the rules governing the tax treatment of certain investment vehicles. The qualifying asset-holding companies regime was included in the Finance Act 2022 and came into effect from April last year. Amendments to the regime were initially announced in July 2022, with further amendments announced in March 2023. The amendments seek to make the regime more widely available to investment fund structures that fall within its intended scope.

As we have heard, clause 35 and schedule 4 also affect the rules for real estate investment trusts—companies through which investors can invest in real estate indirectly. In a written statement on 9 December 2022, the Chancellor announced changes to the property rental business condition and three-year development rule within the real estate investment trust rules. Schedule 4 gives effect to those changes, and we will not oppose clause 35.

[Victoria Atkins]

We are making these changes because, as I have said, we are mindful that this is an incredibly complex area of law and of corporate accountability and we are genuinely happy to listen to businesses when they tell us that there are problems and they think that they have solutions for those problems. That is why we have gone through this process and set up an external working group. HMRC, businesses and their advisers have identified issues with the current rules. We are making these changes to protect the Exchequer and reduce unfair outcomes and administrative burdens on affected businesses.

The hon. Member for Ealing North referred to the worldwide debt cap. The corporate interest restriction rules superseded the tax treatment of financing cost and income rules, commonly referred to as the worldwide debt cap, but there are still open inquiries and cases in litigation where the debt cap legislation is in point. The changes clarify that a revised statement of disallowances is ineffective unless a revised statement of allocated exemptions is also submitted, so exemptions must always be reduced in line with disallowances.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3

Corporate interest restriction etc.

Amendment made: 5, in schedule 3, page 309, line 4, leave out paragraph 28 and insert—

‘28 (1) In section 494 of TIOPA 2010 (other interpretation), at the end insert—

“(3) The definition of “insurance company” in section 65 of FA 2012 (which is applicable to this Part as a result of section 141(2) of that Act) has effect for the purposes of this Part as if, in subsection (2)(a), the reference to Part 4A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 included a reference to the law of a territory outside the United Kingdom which is similar to or corresponds to that Part.”

(2) In Part 7 of Schedule 11 to that Act (index of defined expressions), in the entry relating to an insurance company, in the second column, for “section 141 of FA 2012” substitute “section 494(3)”.’—(Victoria Atkins.)

This amendment secures that companies count as insurance companies for the purposes of the corporate interest restriction rules if they effect or carry out contracts of insurance and have regulatory permission to do so under a foreign law which is similar to or corresponds to the relevant United Kingdom law.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Andrew Stephenson.)

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Second sitting)

James Murray Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 16th May 2023 Public Bill Committees

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)]

Clause 36 makes changes to ensure that tax is paid on value built up in UK shares or securities even if the shares or securities are exchanged for an equivalent holding in a non-UK company. The measure is already legally in application since the point of its announcement in the autumn statement on 17 November last year. It will ensure that tax cannot be avoided where a UK resident non-domiciled individual with a degree of control in a UK company exchanges shares or securities in a UK close company for shares or securities in a non-UK holding company.

Before the measure was introduced, individuals could claim the remittance basis on disposal of the non-UK company shares and any income received in respect of the non-UK company shares. That means that tax will be paid only on the chargeable gain or the income if it is brought into the UK. The measure prevents the remittance basis from applying to the chargeable gain on disposal where the individual holds more than 5% of shares or securities in a UK close company and exchanges the shares for an equivalent holding in a non-UK company. Instead, the individual will pay tax as if the share exchange had not taken place. The clause will prevent tax avoidance by a small number of individuals, and protects £830 million of revenue across the scorecard period, ensuring that tax is paid on value built up in the UK on UK company securities even when securities are exchanged for securities in a non-UK company.

Clause 37 and schedule 5 make changes to require large multinational businesses operating in the UK to prepare transfer pricing documentation in accordance with the OECD’s transfer pricing guidelines. Transfer pricing is a means of ensuring that the pricing of transactions between connected parties is at arm’s length for tax purposes. From the financial year 2016-17 to 2021-22, HMRC brought in £10 billion in additional tax from transfer pricing compliance activities. HMRC does not currently prescribe specific transfer pricing records that UK businesses must prepare to demonstrate that their tax returns are complete and accurate, or the format of those records.

The proposed changes would require UK businesses to prepare OECD standardised documentation, which is described as a master file providing high-level information of the global business operations and a local file providing more detailed information about material cross-border transactions of UK group members with other members of the multinational group. The changes made by clause 37 and schedule 5 provide greater certainty for UK businesses, provide HMRC with better quality data to enable more efficient and targeted compliance interventions, and align the UK’s practice more closely with the transfer pricing documentation requirements of comparable tax administrations.

Clause 38 makes changes to ensure that access to double taxation relief is limited in respect of dividends received by UK companies in periods prior to the introduction of a broad distribution exemption regime in 2009. Specifically, it will prevent new claims for double tax relief credit calculated at the foreign nominal rate of tax on such dividends being made on or after 20 July 2022, the date on which the Government announced in a written ministerial statement that legislation would be introduced for that purpose. Unlike normal double tax relief, which is given on tax actually paid, foreign nominal rate credit is a notional amount calculated by reference to the rate of tax applicable to the profits out of which the overseas dividends were paid.

A first-tier tribunal decision in 2021 concerning the nature of this credit raised the prospect that certain claims could still be made by companies in receipt of foreign dividends prior to the introduction of distribution exemption in 2009, possibly as far back as 1973, so we needed to act. The measure will protect Exchequer revenue by preventing new claims from being made for long-settled years where no actual additional tax has been paid by the claimant. It does not seek to prevent such claims in relation to periods that are open or remain subject to ongoing litigation. The measure is intended to preserve the balance between taxpayers’ rights to make double-taxation relief claims and the need to impose reasonable time limits in respect of such claims. I recommend that all of these clauses stand part of the Bill.

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I begin by addressing clause 36, which inserts new sections into the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. As we heard from the Minister, the new sections will help to make sure that UK tax cannot be avoided on chargeable gains made on the disposal of a UK business, or on income received in respect of shares or securities held in a UK business, by exchanging securities in a UK company for securities in a non-UK holding company. Under the current legislation, where such an exchange takes place and the individual is a UK-resident non-domicile, they will be able to claim the remittance basis on any chargeable gain made on the disposal of the non-UK company’s securities or on any income received in respect of the offshore company’s securities.

I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the Government’s response to some of the queries about the detail of the Bill that have been raised by the Chartered Institute of Taxation, which has expressed concern that by applying only to individuals in their other guises—for example, when they are acting as trustees—the measure leaves gaps that could be exploited. The Chartered Institute of Taxation believes that there is potentially a straightforward avoidance opportunity here, whereby having shares held by trustees just before the share-for-share exchange could be resolved by extending the measure to cover trustees, rather than just individuals on their own. To tackle this issue, the Chartered Institute of Taxation suggests that individuals acting as trustees, or as partners or members of partnerships or LLPs, be included within the definition of those affected by the change, to ensure that artificial intermediaries are not put in place prior to any exchange.

The second point raised by the Chartered Institute of Taxation, which I would like the Minister to address, relates to the wording of the Bill with respect to the ownership of shares, which it believes may also create an avoidance opportunity. New section 138ZA(1)(d) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992, which clause 36 introduces, refers to the person to whom the shares are issued—the legal owner, as opposed to the beneficial owner. It is well recognised in tax law that the beneficial owner is the real owner for tax purposes, so the Bill should logically refer to beneficial ownership. The Chartered Institute of Taxation is therefore concerned that failure to clarify the beneficial, rather than legal, ownership could leave a possible avoidance opportunity open, and I would be grateful if the Minister could address that point.

More widely, looking beyond the specific detail of the Bill, we believe it is important to consider the context in which the clause operates. It seems clear that the situation that the measure in the clause seeks to address arises only because of the existence of the non-dom tax status and the associated remittance basis. Indeed, the Government’s own policy paper on this matter makes it clear that the measure is expected to affect a very small number of wealthy, UK-resident non-domiciled individuals a year. In practice, the measures we are considering need to be addressed only because the Government refuse to get rid of the £3.2 billion-a-year tax loophole that the Prime Minister has referred to as “that non-dom thing”.

The Minister may recall how she told the House in January that the measures we are debating today would mean that the Chancellor would close the loophole in non-dom legislation, but when we inspect the detail that is before us today, it is clear that this is just a smaller loophole within the much larger and more profound loophole: the continued existence of the non-dom tax status. The policy paper underscores this point and confirms that the measure will raise, on average over the next five years, just one 20th of the £3.2 billion lost through the non-dom tax status every year. I urge the Minister to go beyond the small step today and commit to abolishing the non-dom tax loophole altogether.

Moving on to clause 37 and schedule 5, we understand that this measure is intended to make sure that businesses maintain and provide upon request transfer pricing documentation prepared in accordance with the OECD transfer pricing guidelines. We recognise that accessing high-quality data in a standardised format would enable HMRC to carry out more informed risk assessments, target resources more efficiently and reduce the time taken to establish the facts in compliance interventions. Moreover, having to clearly report transfer pricing information in specific documentation will result in businesses having clearer and more robust transfer pricing positions to inform the filing of their return. This may encourage and incentivise businesses that adopt higher risk transfer pricing positions to change their behaviour.

In recent years there have been significant developments in the field of international taxation. More than six years ago, the OECD presented a package of measures in response to the G20-OECD base erosion and profit shifting action plan, including a requirement to develop rules regarding transfer pricing documentation. The action 13 final report recognised the importance of having the right information at the right time to identify and resolve transfer pricing risks. This led to the introduction of guidance on a standardised approach to transfer pricing documentation.

The standardised approach consists of three things: a master file containing standardised information relevant for all multinational enterprise group members; a local file referring specifically to material transactions of the local taxpayer; and a country-by-country report for the largest multinational enterprise groups containing aggregate data on the global allocation of income, profit, taxes paid, economic activity and so on among the tax jurisdictions in which it operates.

We understand from the policy paper on this measure that the UK did not originally introduce specific requirements regarding the master file and local file because the Government felt that the UK already had broad record-keeping requirements. They seem to have changed their mind on this, which has led to this Bill. It seems that the status quo had created uncertainty for UK businesses regarding the appropriate transfer pricing documentation that they needed to keep. That led to an inconsistency of approach. Although this measure relates to the standardised approach for transfer pricing documentation, I would like to ask the Minister to update the Committee on the status of country-by-country reporting.

The policy paper refers to the fact that the UK implemented the country-by-country minimum standard. However, as we know, the Government have long been hesitant to go beyond that minimum and provide public country-by-country reporting. Indeed, nearly three years ago my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) made it clear to one of the Minister’s predecessors that for years the Opposition has been urging the Government to commit to country-by-country reporting on a public basis. Will the Minister give us her view on public country-by-country reporting and explain what is preventing the Government from implementing it?

Finally, clause 38 introduces a measure to limit access to double taxation relief in certain circumstances. Specifically, we understand that it will prevent new claims for double taxation relief credit, calculated by the foreign nominal rate of tax, which could arise in relation to overseas dividends received by UK companies in periods prior to the introduction of the distribution exemption in 2009. We recognise that this measure is intended to preserve the balance between double taxation relief claims and the need to impose reasonable time limits in respect of such claims, so we will not be opposing this clause.

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. On the points made by my hon. Friend in relation to clause 36, it is important for the record that we understand the Government’s thinking around non-doms. Although work has been done to close the particular loophole that was mentioned, as my hon. Friend has just said it is quite apparent that that work is tiny compared to the scale of the problem. It is worth exploring the breadth of the problem.

Let us be clear. Non-doms receive around £10.9 billion in offshore income. That is capital gains that they are not required to report on to HMRC or pay tax on in the UK each year. For a non-dom using that remittance basis scheme, that amounts to a tax break of on average £420,000. Those unreported capital gains represent a huge untapped pool of tax. There are so many issues facing the country, and that money could be used appropriately to lift many people out of poverty.

Members on Government Benches have expressed on many occasions concerns about abolishing non-dom status and a potential flight or mass exodus from the UK. However, recent interesting research by the University of Warwick found that only 0.3% of those affected would leave the country. That is fewer than 100 people in total, most of whom are paying hardly any tax under the current regime. My question to the Minister is: why is there so little breadth in what has been brought forward? This was an opportunity to completely abolish non-dom status, or, if the Government are not prepared to do that, certainly to apply minds in the Treasury to a far wider range of areas, which would have brought much-needed money into our coffers. It is a problem that the Government are really a bit lax when it comes to tax.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

The hon. Gentleman is trying to tempt me away from the scope of the Bill, and I will resist that temptation. I gently ask him to help me—perhaps afterwards—to understand the evidence he has to support his claim that the overwhelming number of non-dom claimants are British residents. We just need to be a little bit careful about definitions.

Let me move on to the questions from the hon. Member for Ealing North. The share exchange legislation provides a relatively simple way for shareholders to avoid tax. It applies only to individuals. If individuals use artificial arrangements to prevent the legislation from applying, they will need to consider whether other anti-avoidance provisions apply.

The hon. Member asked about the difference between the legal owner and the beneficial owner. Again, the legislation applies to shares held on behalf of the individual in a nominee, or bare trust arrangement. Section 60 of the TCGA treats shares as being issued to the beneficial owner where there is a bare trust or nominee arrangement in place.

On public country-by-country reporting, we remain firmly committed to a multilateral approach, but it is important that such a requirement applies consistently across domestic and foreign headquartered multinationals to avoid distorting decisions on where companies decide to locate.

[James Murray]

The Minister quoted some figures that we have heard before, and I think it is worth the Committee having the context for them. The Minister tried to defend non-dom tax status by claiming that non-doms paid £7.9 billion in UK taxes last year. As always, that argument entirely misses the point, because we are talking about the £3.2 billion of tax that non-doms avoid paying in this country every year.

The Minister also repeated her line about non-doms having invested £6 billion in investment schemes since 2012, but I am sure the Committee would want to know that that ignores the fact that only 1% of non-doms invest their overseas income in the UK in any given year. In fact, non-dom status discourages people from bringing money into the UK to invest. We have set out the Labour party’s position very clearly, explaining how we would have a modern, short-term scheme for temporary residents.

Finally, the Minister referred to the potential behavioural impact if non-dom status were abolished. She was quick to dismiss some of the independent findings of the LSE and Warwick, made on the basis of HMRC data. If she is so confident that the behavioural difference will be that different, will she publish the Treasury research, so we have it in the public domain?

[Victoria Atkins]

We have to make judgments on how we ensure that the UK economy is not only internationally competitive but attractive to other countries. We are happy to make the point that non-domiciled taxpayers can make a valuable contribution to the United Kingdom, but of course we want them to pay—we require them to pay—UK income tax, and so on, on their UK income and remittances. We want to ensure that that system is in place.

On the behavioural aspects, we looked very carefully at the University of Warwick report, but what worries us is that there does not seem to be a recognition of the mobility of such people. They are able to live and work anywhere in the world. We do not want to put their living here at risk. Let us not forget that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to put at risk £7.9 billion. That is a risk we are not prepared to take.

[James Murray]

I will focus on the question in my previous intervention. The Minister was keen to rubbish the LSE and Warwick analysis based on HMRC data. Will she—

[Victoria Atkins]

On a point of order, Ms McVey.

[The Chair]

James Murray will finish and then the Minister will come in.

[James Murray]

Thank you, Ms McVey. The Minister was quick to rubbish the conclusions of the LSE and Warwick on the behavioural impact of abolishing non-dom status, even though the research was thorough and based on HMRC data. The question I asked the Minister was whether she will publish the Treasury analysis that she is relying on to rubbish that LSE-Warwick conclusion.

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Ms McVey. My hon. Friend the Minister did not say that. Is it in order for Members of this House to misrepresent the words of other Members? I am pretty sure that “Erskine May” is clear, but I would be grateful for your guidance. I apologise for jumping in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

Clause 39 makes changes to clarify that payments from the lump sum exit scheme are treated as capital receipts. It aims to set clear and fair rules regarding the taxation of the scheme. Clause 40 creates a fairer system for assessing capital gains when an asset is disposed of under an unconditional contract. Clause 41 makes the capital gains tax rules fairer for spouses and civil partners in the process of separating or divorcing. Clause 42 makes changes to ensure that individuals who pay tax on carried interest are able to better align the time a tax liability arises in the UK with that of other relevant jurisdictions, and therefore claim double taxation relief where it is due. Clause 43 makes changes to ensure that roll-over relief and private residence relief work as originally intended for members of limited liability partnerships and partners of Scottish partnerships.

I will go through the changes in detail. Clause 39 clarifies the tax treatment for around 2,700 sole trader farmers, farming partnerships and farming companies who have received, or will receive, payments from the lump sum exit scheme. That will give certainty to those receiving such payments and remove the need to consider individual cases.

Clause 40 modifies HMRC’s four-year assessment powers so that, in certain circumstances, they will operate by reference to the tax year or accounting period in which the asset is conveyed or transferred. For capital gains tax, those circumstances are where the conveyance or transfer takes place six months after the end of the tax year in which the contract is entered into. For corporation tax, the date is one year after the end of the accounting period for the contract.

Capital gains tax rules provide that the transfer of assets between spouses and civil partners is made on a “no gain/no loss” basis. When spouses or civil partners separate, no gain/no loss transfers can be made only in the remainder of the tax year in which the separation occurs. Clause 41 extends no gain/no loss treatment until the end of the third tax year after the year the parties ceased to live together, the date on which the parties’ marriage or civil partnership ended, or the date when the parties entered into a divorce or separation agreement. No time limit applies to transfers of assets that form part of a formal divorce or separation agreement. The clause also makes changes to the rules that apply to the sale of the former family home. The other change applies to individuals who have transferred their share in the former family home to their ex-spouse or civil partner and who are entitled to receive a percentage of the proceeds when it is eventually sold.

Amendment 6 corrects an issue with time limits. Where a divorce agreement has not been entered into, spouses and civil partners should have up to three full tax years in which to transfer assets between themselves on a no gain/no loss basis. As it is worded currently, clause 41 provides a day short of that, so we want to correct that. Amendment 7 clarifies that the new rules also apply to divorce agreements entered into after spouses and civil partners have ceased to be married or have ended their civil partnership.

The changes made by clause 42 will introduce a new elective basis of taxation for carried interest, a type of reward for asset managers. For those who opt to use the elective basis, it will tax carried interest in the UK at an earlier time than under the current rules. That will mean that individuals receiving carried interest may be able to claim double tax relief in other jurisdictions more easily, avoiding disproportionate tax outcomes. That will help to remove barriers to international trade and support the health of the asset management sector while accelerating, but not reducing, UK tax.

Amendment 8 seeks to refine the calculation of carried interest for the purposes of clause 42. It modifies the calculation methodology so that it works in circumstances where managers are entitled to more carried interest if investors receive fund profits earlier. That means that the measure will better deliver in practice the opportunity to claim relief from double taxation on carried interest, as intended.

Clause 43 will ensure that roll-over relief and private residence relief work as originally intended for members of limited liability partnerships and partners of Scottish partnerships, by clarifying that the reliefs are available to them when an exchange of interest in land or private residences takes place, in the same way as they are when the land is held by the individual members or partners.

This group of clauses will provide greater certainty, consistency and fairness in the taxation of chargeable gains. I therefore commend them to the Committee.

[James Murray]

Clause 39 clarifies the tax treatment of payments received under the lump sum exit scheme, saying they will be treated as capital receipts rather than income, provided that the eligibility criteria are met. As we know, the lump sum exit scheme was designed to make it easier for farmers who wish to retire or to leave the industry. The basis for the scheme was considered in 2021 by a consultation that we understand received 654 responses.

We will not oppose the clause, which is specifically designed to provide clarity on the tax treatment of payments made under the scheme, but I wish to use this opportunity to ask the Minister for more context around the clause and, in particular, for details on the operation of the scheme and what comes next.

I understand that a total of 2,706 farmers made an initial application to the lump sum exit scheme by the deadline of 30 September 2022. Of those claims, 511 were withdrawn or rejected. Will the Minister tell us what analysis there has been of why those 511 claims were withdrawn or rejected?

I am conscious that when the draft Agriculture (Lump Sum Payment) (England) Regulations 2022, which relate to this matter, were debated in March last year, concerns were raised, on behalf of organisations including Sustain, that the scheme could be open to instances of fraud. Will the Minister confirm whether any of the 511 claims that were withdrawn or rejected were in fact rejected on the basis of fraud? If she does not have that information, perhaps she can at least provide us with the detail about what anti-fraud efforts have been made in relation to the scheme and how successful they have been.

I understand that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is conducting five pilots aimed at supporting new entrants into farming, and I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on how those pilots are going and any early lessons that she may be able to share with us.

Clause 40 modifies the operation of the period in which a person must notify HMRC that they are chargeable to capital gains tax or corporation tax, and the time limits for assessing chargeable gains and claiming allowable losses, when an asset is disposed of under an unconditional contract.

When an asset is disposed of in that way, its date of disposal for capital gains purposes is treated as being the date on which the contract is made and not the date on which the asset is conveyed or transferred, if this is different. HMRC subsequently has four years from the end of the tax year or accounting period in which the disposal is treated as taking place in which to assess any tax that is due. Similarly, there is a four-year time limit for making loss claims. If there is a long gap between the disposal contract being entered into and it being performed, that can result in HMRC and taxpayers having little or no time in which to make a tax assessment or a claim.

We recognise that the measure removes potential avoidance opportunities by ensuring that HMRC can assess tax due in circumstances in which more than four years pass between an unconditional contract being entered into and an asset being conveyed or transferred. It also provides the taxpayer with a safeguard by allowing a corresponding period to claim allowable losses. We will therefore not oppose the clause.

As we heard, clause 41 makes changes to the rules that apply to transfers of assets between spouses and civil partners who are in the process of separating. It provides that they be given up to three years in which to make a no gain, no loss transfer of assets between themselves when they cease to live together, and unlimited time if the assets are the subject of a formal divorce agreement. It also introduces special rules that apply to individuals who have maintained a financial interest in their former family home following separation and that apply when that home is eventually sold.

Essentially, the clause seeks to make fairer the capital gains tax rules that apply to spouses and civil partners who are in the process of separating. It gives them more time to transfer assets between themselves without incurring a potential charge to capital gains tax. No gain, no loss treatment is currently available only in relation to disposals made in the remainder of the tax year in which the spouses or civil partners cease to live together. After that, transfers are treated as normal disposals for capital gains tax purposes. The measure extends the time available to give separating couples at least three years to make no gain, no loss transfers between themselves for capital gains tax purposes.

It is worth noting that the “Background to the measure” section of the Government’s policy paper on this matter refers to the Office of Tax Simplification and its consideration of how the capital gains tax rules apply to individuals who separate and divorce. The Government responded to the Office of Tax Simplification recommendations by agreeing that the no gain, no loss window on separation and divorce should be extended, and that is what the clause implements.

There is at the very least something ironic about a Government who use one clause of a Finance Bill to implement a recommendation of the Office of Tax Simplification and another clause of the same Bill to abolish that institution. As the Chartered Institute of Taxation has pointed out, the changes to be made by the clause are a result of an Office of Tax Simplification report. In fact, they are the third recommendation from that report to be implemented: it also recommended an increase in the notification period for the disposal of residential properties from 30 days to 60, and the incorporation of capital gains tax into a single customer account.

Will the Minister offer her views on that when she responds, and set out how the Government reconcile the apparent worth they seem to attribute to the Office of Tax Simplification, as evidenced by their decision to implement its recommendation in clause 41, with their decision to scrap it later in the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

On amendment 8, I had read out that it seeks to refine the calculations of carried interest for the purposes of clause 42. It modifies the calculation methodology so that it also works in circumstances where managers are entitled to more carried interest if investors receive fund profits earlier. That will mean that the measure will better deliver in practice the opportunity to claim relief from double taxation on carried interest, as intended.

[James Murray]

I apologise to the Minister for missing her comments about Government amendment 8 and remind her that I would like to know whether the amendment, if it is passed, will have any effect on the overall Exchequer impact of the measure.

[Victoria Atkins]

I will come to that later.

The hon. Gentleman should send his questions about the farmer scheme to DEFRA, which is responsible for the Rural Payments Agency, which operates the scheme. He will know that we are confining ourselves to the tax implications of the scheme, so he ought to direct his questions there.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the Office of Tax Simplification, and that debate awaits us in our next day of consideration in Committee. I will not trespass on those deliberations, but we are in fact going further than the OTS’s recommendation, as we consider that that will give a fairer outcome to the parties involved in complex separation and divorce proceedings. We received representations that the OTS’s recommendations did not go far enough and we wanted to address the issues about the former family home that, for many divorcing and separating couples, is their main asset. We want to try to relieve the pressure during what can be a very upsetting and emotional time for the people involved and to try to ensure that they have time to resolve important family disputes.

In relation to carried interest being taxed as income, depending on the circumstances carried interest can be subject either to income tax rates or to the higher capital gains tax rate of 28% for higher and additional rate taxpayers. This is a balanced approach and one that is followed by comparable jurisdictions. We are supportive of the wider role and importance of the asset management sector. Amendment 8 has no impact on clause 42; it is designed to make the measure work as intended.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41

Separated spouses and civil partners

Amendments made: 6, in clause 41, page 32, line 36, at beginning insert “on or ”.

This amendment ensures that the inserted subsection (1C) applies to disposals made on the days mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of that subsection as well as before those days.

Amendment 7, in clause 41, page 33, line 8, after “etc)” insert—

“, but as if, in subsection (2)(a), after ‘partner’ there were inserted ‘, or former spouse or civil partner,’”. —(Victoria Atkins.)

This amendment clarifies that the inserted subsection (1D) applies in relation to disposals made after A and B have ceased to be married or civil partners.

Clause 41, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42

Carried interest: election to pay tax as scheme profits arise

Amendment made: 8, in clause 42, page 34, line 40, at end insert—

“(5A) Where—

(a) distributions were made by the scheme to external investors before the relevant tax year, and

(b) the timing of those distributions affects the amount of carried interest that actually arises to A,

the amount of carried interest to be presumed to arise in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (5) is to reflect the fact those distributions were made before the relevant tax year.

(5B) But if reflecting that fact would lead to a presumption that an amount of carried interest had arisen before the relevant tax year, any such amount is to be presumed to arise in the relevant tax year.” —(Victoria Atkins.)

This amendment secures that the amount of carried interest that is presumed to arise in the hypothetical situation that determines the amount of the charge properly reflects prior distributions to investors.

Clause 42, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44

Meaning of “alcoholic product”

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

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting)

James Murray Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th May 2023 Public Bill Committees

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.

As a matter of housekeeping, I should say that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ealing North, asked me questions on Tuesday regarding the implementation of changes to the company share option plan, and I committed to write to him with those details. That letter has gone to him this morning, with copies deposited in the Libraries of the Houses. Indeed, I have also arranged for it to be sent to the other Committee members, for their convenience.

The clause will amend existing stamp duty land tax rules to ensure that registered providers of social housing are exempt from the tax when purchasing property using funding allocated under section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003. In December last year, the Government announced an additional £650 million for the Homes for Ukraine support package, which included giving local authorities in England an additional £0.5 billion to reduce homelessness by obtaining housing to reduce pressure on social housing and to help accommodate Ukrainian and Afghan refugees. On 28 March this year, the Government announced a further £250 million of funding, the majority of which will be used to house Afghan families in bridging accommodation. The rest will be used to ease existing homelessness pressures.

The additional funding, as I said, is allocated under section 31 of the Local Government Act, and the existing stamp duty land tax system includes an exemption for social housing purchases. However, not all social housing providers in receipt of the additional funding would benefit from those exemptions, so we are looking to correct that and to enable registered providers of social housing to benefit from the exemption when they use the new funding. It is a sensible clarification and I hope that the Committee will support the clause standing part of the Bill.

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve in Committee with you as Chair, Mr Stringer.

The acquisition of certain properties by registered social landlords is exempt from stamp duty, provided that the purchase is funded with the assistance of public subsidy. As the Minister set out, in December last year the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities announced an additional £500 million in funding for local authorities to secure additional housing stock for those fleeing conflict, including those from Ukraine and Afghanistan. We understand that that additional funding was allocated under section 31 of the Local Government Act, and the clause will add that section to the list of public subsidies that enable a purchase to qualify for the stamp duty exemption. For the purposes of the stamp duty exemption, we understand that local authorities that intend to register with the Regulator of Social Housing are treated as not-for-profit registered providers of social housing.

The explanatory notes state that £500 million was announced for the local authority housing fund in December 2022, and I welcome the Minister’s assurance that the additional £250 million announced since will also be covered by this clause. We will not oppose the clause, as any support it offers to local authorities that buy homes to provide social housing is welcome.

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. This is not the first time that I have been on a Committee with you in the Chair.

Will the Minister give a view about how many extra homes this change to stamp duty land tax will enable local authorities to fund? Has any analysis been done? There will obviously be a positive effect, but how large will it be? Many Afghans are still in hotels and are unable to put down roots so that they can begin to establish themselves in this country and flourish. For large families living in hotels, this is a difficult time, so I would have thought that Members from both sides of the House are anxious to see this scheme work. Knowing the Treasury, it will have done some analysis of the positive benefit of the proposal, so will the Minister share it with the Committee?

How long does the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities expect these extra moneys to last? Will the Minister come back to Parliament to extend this exemption further, or will that happen in a spending review?

--- Later in debate ---

The clause provides the commissioners of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs with a power to designate which deposit schemes are covered by the clause, to ensure that the special VAT accounting rules apply only to official Government deposit schemes, including those under discussion at the moment in Scotland. Consumers will not be affected by the VAT accounting, as they will pay a fixed deposit. If they return a container, they will receive the same amount back. I urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.

[James Murray]

As we have heard, the clause introduces rules for VAT accounting for deposit return schemes. As the Minister set out, it means that when making sales within the scope of the relevant deposit scheme, no VAT will be charged in relation to the deposit amount. However, VAT on unreturned deposit amounts will be paid by the first seller of a deposit scheme product.

We recognise that, under existing legislation, deposit return schemes may be introduced across the UK, and we recognise that the clause helps to facilitate the operation of such schemes by introducing VAT accounting rules. The clause ensures that no VAT will be charged at any point in the supply chain in relation to the deposit element of the price for a deposit scheme product. There will only be a requirement to account for VAT where suppliers make the first sale of standard-rated deposit scheme products that include a deposit amount.

More widely, we have been disappointed by the delays in the introduction of a deposit return scheme. It was only after multiple consultations that the Government finally announced in January 2023 that they would introduce a deposit return scheme for plastic and cans, but not for glass, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland from 2025. We will not oppose the clause. Indeed, we want to see a deposit return scheme introduced as soon as possible, so I would be grateful if the Minister could use this opportunity to confirm whether the Government are still committed to introducing one in England, Wales and Northern Ireland by 2025.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Obviously, the VAT rules account for some of the most complex parts of the duties and excise that the Minister has to wrestle with on a day-to-day basis. When one talks to businesses of all sizes, often one of the biggest complaints is about the complexity of the VAT rules. Given how much revenue VAT brings in and how all-encompassing it is, perhaps that is not surprising, but I wonder whether the Minister is happy with increased complexity that the changes bring. Perhaps she could give us a flavour of her thoughts and considerations in dealing with the issue of deposit schemes and the complexity of the VAT rules.

Given that VAT will be levied only on the first seller, the Minister has clearly tried to make the rules as simple as possible. But how much complexity does she think the clause will introduce, given that it will be applicable to plastic and cans—presumably aluminium—both of which are easily recyclable, but not to glass? I assume that she is not introducing glass straight away because of the sheer number of glass bottles and the size of the task. Again, perhaps she could give us a flavour of the thinking behind excluding glass, and tell us whether the intention is to include it at a later stage. How complex does she think doing that might be?

I am old enough, as I am sure—I am going to put this politely—you are, Mr Stringer, to remember when we had deposit return schemes for glass, long before anyone thought about digitally scanning anything or any of the computer-based structures that I assume will facilitate the VAT inspectors’ task. Perhaps the Minister could give us some indication of that. Again, how much revenue does she think will have to be forgone?

What assumptions have His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the tax inspectors made about the actual cost of schemes such as this in revenue forgone? Clearly, the idea—to incentivise good behaviour that will assist in increasing recycling—is one we would all support. We all want that to work, but if it is not done properly, it could be an enormous fiddling thing that does not really have much effect at all. All of us would applaud the decision not to impact the customer and, clearly, we want to see the containers for recycling brought back.

Can the Minister say a little about whether she has considered how the scheme might interact with the packaging regulations? Again, they are a moveable feast, given that we have left the EU and they have had to be changed as well, but there is clearly a direct connection between the two. We must make certain that the way the packaging regulations work increases, if possible, the incentive for the recycling to work.

There is also the landfill tax, which might have an impact on behaviour. I am sure that the Minister has had a towel on her head thinking all that through to try to make certain that it works as intended. It is currently due to come into effect in 2025. Given the complexity, is she confident that that will happen, given that there have already been delays and the scheme itself is now smaller than most people want it to be, because it excludes glass?

Given the complexity of VAT—when it must be done, when the returns must be made and how difficult that can be for businesses—does the Minister think that moving on without a set timescale, and the uncertainty created by that, give the best background for a successful introduction? The delivery of the scheme in Scotland seems to have run into trouble. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife has insights that he can share with us—it is almost as late as a TransPennine Express train.

I am interested in what the Minister has to say about some of my questions. The scheme might seem to be a fiddling little thing, but it fiddles with a very complex tax and interacts with many other things. A bit more insight into the Minister’s thinking and her confidence about whether the scheme can be delivered on time would be really welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

As we heard from the Minister, clause 316 introduces schedules 19 and 20, which relate to the Trade Remedies Authority. When the UK left the EU, the UK Government established their own UK Trade Remedies Authority to undertake work on trade remedies previously carried out by the EU. The organisation was established in June 2021 to carry out investigations and recommend remedies related to dumping, foreign subsidies and safeguards for internationally traded goods.

The explanatory notes to the Bill explain that schedule 19 is intended to allow the Secretary of State to exercise a great deal of flexibility when making decisions on trade remedy cases. The notes also explain that schedule 20 extends the TRA’s remit to include bilateral safeguards in some of the UK free trade agreements. It also seeks to enable Ministers to request that the TRA open an investigation to determine whether the criteria to apply a measure has been met and what form a potential measure should take. It further provides Ministers with the power to apply a measure to ask the TRA to reassess its determination and recommendation, and to enable Ministers to take a different decision from the TRA’s recommendation.

It seems clear that the schedules represent a significant increase in the power of Ministers over the Trade Remedies Authority, which was established just two years ago. Despite its short life, the Trade Remedies Authority found itself at the heart of a political storm in Downing Street last year. Right hon. and hon. Members might recall that in June 2022 Lord Geidt resigned from his position as the ethics adviser for the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) when he was Prime Minister. In his resignation letter Lord Geidt wrote:

“I was tasked to offer a view about the Government’s intention to consider measures which risk a deliberate and purposeful breach of the Ministerial Code. This request has placed me in an impossible and odious position.”

In his response, the then Prime Minister confirmed what the dispute concerned. He wrote to Lord Geidt:

“You say that you were put in an impossible position regarding my seeking your advice on potential future decisions related to the Trade Remedies Authority.”

Despite that brush with the former Prime Minister, the Trade Remedies Authority has continued to exist. The measures being introduced by the two schedules that we are discussing will have a significant impact on its relationship with Ministers. This is a fair amount of change for an organisation that has existed for less than two years.

To help members of the Committee put the proposals in context, will the Minister explain the Government’s reasoning behind the initial arrangements for the Trade Remedies Authority two years ago, and how the changes to the arrangements that we are considering today were decided? Will she explain whether there has been any international benchmarking of similar authorities in other countries? What are their levels of independence and their relevant relations with politician?

Clause 316 would allow customers to apply to HMRC for advance valuation ruling decisions. Advance rulings provide traders with a legally binding decision from customs authorities in advance of a shipment, which gives them certainty about how their goods are treated with implications for duty levied. The UK currently issues advance rulings in respect of tariff classification and origin of goods but has not provided advance rulings on customs valuation. That is because customs valuation rulings were not provided for in the EU. However, as the Minister said, they are widely offered by customs authorities worldwide.

We understand that the measures would allow HMRC to provide businesses with more certainty when they are deciding on the most appropriate method of customs valuation for valuing their goods for import. Anything that gives businesses greater certainty is to be welcomed, so we will not be opposing the clause. On a specific point of clarity, however, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the clause’s advanced rulings provision is required as a condition of the UK’s accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership.

Finally, clause 317 updates legislation to permit HMRC to require financial guarantees to be given for duty amounts payable on imported goods and ensure that decisions to require such guarantees will be subject to review and appeal rights. Since January 2021, section 119 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 has been used to require a financial guarantee from importers as a condition of releasing imported goods from the control of an HMRC officer where the amount of customs duty due for the goods is unclear. However, there has been no statutory right for an importer to request a review of, or an appeal against, such a guarantee requirement. Those appeal and review rights were inadvertently omitted when EU legislation was transposed into domestic legislation, which seems to have been an oversight by the Government. We will not oppose the clause, which seeks to remedy the Government’s mistake, but will the Minister explain what impact that mistake has had? Specifically, how many appeal and review requests by importers have been lodged but denied consideration since January 2021, and what steps are being taken to rectify any individual grievances that have arisen as a result?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

The clause seems quite mild, but it seems to have many implications for the policing of import duties; the prevention of widespread dumping or misuse of products on our markets, which could destroy establishing domestic industries; and the regulation of free trade agreements that we make around the world. Will the Minister give us some indication of how the Trade Remedies Authority changes that are encompassed in clause 315 and schedules 19 and 20 will impact on its independence? From listening to the Minister, it seemed to me that that was one of the most important aspects of the changes, and the Committee needs to understand it as we continue to scrutinise the Bill.

Clearly, a trade remedies body must be independent of those it oversees, so that it is seen as an appropriate body to make decisions that might have serious economic consequences for one side or the other. It is, effectively, a trade judiciary; if it is to be effective, it has to be seen to be independent and widely respected for its independence. The changes made by the clause seem to eat away at some of that. The Minister was talking about different changes to the way in which the authority can pursue its job, including increases in different kinds of information and having to notify Ministers before initiating reviews. It is a quite a big step to put that in legislation, rather than have it as memorandum of understanding. Reading between the lines, that implies that Ministers are not happy with the way in which the Trade Remedies Authority is behaving. Why have the Government decided to put these changes in legislation, rather than in a memorandum of understanding, and why do they think that the Trade Remedies Authority needs to be constrained by law? Is it because there has been a breakdown in the relationship between Ministers and the people who run the authority? Is because there is a lack of trust, or is it simply because Ministers want more direct control over the way in which the authority behaves? That would have implications for the TRA’s independence, and it would certainly have implications for how its independence would be perceived by those wishing to approach it for a jurisdictional reason or for decision making.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

I hope I will be able answer some of the questions that the hon. Member for Wallasey asked about why the changes are being made. We announced our decision to reform the trade remedies framework in June 2021, and this is the end of a review process to look at how our framework is working. As I suspect Members across the House, not just this Committee, might expect, we have been talking and listening to industry, asking it for its views on how the trade remedy system could be improved. Consultations on including bilateral safeguard provisions have taken place as part of new free trade negotiations, and those will continue to occur for each negotiation. Importantly, we have asked not only the industry but the TRA, and we will work with it to ensure that the changes are implemented effectively.

The hon. Member for Ealing North asked about international comparators. I confirm that all the changes we are making are in line with our obligations under the WTO. Advance rulings are a key component of the UK’s accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership and other key free trade agreements, but they also help business. Those are some reasons for introducing them. On clause 317, no statutory right of appeal for traders has existed since we left the EU, but we continue to offer the trader the right to be heard scheme, which gives a trader a period of 30 days to present additional information before HMRC confirms the decision.

The hon. Member for Wallasey asked some important questions about the TRA and its independence, including why this has to be done through legislation. The TRA very much remains an independent body, and we genuinely value its expertise and advice. Its core objective will be to investigate allegations of unfair trading practices and unforeseen surges in imports, and to make recommendations to Ministers. It will continue to run fair, impartial and evidence-based investigations. The Secretary of State will then decide whether a measure should apply based on the evidence provided.

The Bill injects another element of transparency, because the Secretary of State for Business and Trade will have to make a statement to Parliament if Ministers decide to apply an alternative remedy to that recommended by the TRA—I imagine that the Treasury Committee would take a great interest in that—and the statement would set out the reasons for their decision. The TRA will continue to maintain a public file of the evidence and publish its conclusions as well. I hope colleagues will be reassured by the transparency that we seek to bring in.

On the TRA itself, it started to investigate cases in 2021. To date, its completed cases include one new investigation and 11 measures transitioned from the EU. It investigates, for example, allegations of dumping, subsidy and unforeseen surges in imports, and it provides objective, independent and evidence-based advice to Ministers, which we will very much continue to value.

As to why we have to make the changes through legislation, the TRA is a statutory body, it can therefore only act within its statutory powers. That is why we have to bring forward the legislation. Furthermore, it will give certainty to parliamentarians should it be needed in future—though I hope that will not be the case.

[James Murray]

I thank the Minister for her response, although she might have misunderstood my question on international comparators. Her response, I believe, was that what the UK Government are doing is in line with WTO requirements, but my question was whether there had been any international benchmarking of the TRA, its role, its powers and its relationship with politicians—its level of independence and so on—against similar authorities in other countries. Perhaps she will address that question.

[Victoria Atkins]

I do not have that information to hand, but I will endeavour to get it as quickly as possible and furnish the Committee with it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 315 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 19 and 20 agreed to.

Clauses 316 and 317 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 318

Excepted machines etc

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

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

I am afraid you’ve got me, Mr Stringer. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

Clause 318 makes technical amendments to the legislation that restricts the entitlement to use rebated fuels to a number of qualifying uses from 1 April 2022 to adjust the restrictions and ensure the legislation operates as intended. It makes minor amendments to changes that were introduced in April 2022 to restrict the entitlement to use rebated fuels.

At Budget 2020, the Government announced that we would remove the entitlement to use rebated diesel and biofuels, including marked oils, from most sectors to help meet our climate change and air quality targets. The changes were legislated for in the Finance Act 2021 and amended by the Finance Act 2022. The changes ensure that most users of rebated fuels prior to April 2022 are now required to use fully duty-paid fuel, like motorists. That more fairly reflects the harmful impact of the emissions that they produce.

Following the implementation of the changes, the Government were made aware of a small number of unintended impacts on fuel users. This measure will make minor amendments in relation to them and will correct a technical issue in section 14B of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979.

The changes in the clause will adjust restrictions on the entitlement to use rebated fuels to a number of qualifying uses, will qualify how the changes to the new rules work, and will allow the legislation to operate as intended. They will allow machines or appliances used to generate electricity or provide heating primarily for non-commercial premises to use rebated fuels even if they also provide some of the electricity or heat to commercial premises. They will also add arboriculture to the list of activities for which machines and appliances, other than vehicles, can use rebated fuels. That clarification will allow those working in the sector to use rebated fuels in the same machines and appliances as they did before April 2022.

The changes allow the use of rebated fuels in tractors and gear owned by lifeboat charities used to launch and recover their lifeboats. Finally, they make minor technical corrections to remove an anomaly of section 14B of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979.

These changes reflect feedback received from stakeholders since the Finance Act 2022 received Royal Assent. The technical changes in the clause will ensure that the Government’s reforms to the tax treatment of rebated fuels made in April 2022 work as intended. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[James Murray]

As we know, at Budget 2020, the Government announced that they would remove the entitlement to use rebated diesel and biofuels from those sectors. As we heard, these changes took effect from April 2022, and they ensure that most users of rebated diesel prior to April 2022 are now required to use fully duty-paid diesel, as motorists do.

As the Minister set out, the Government have been made aware of unintended impacts of the legislation on fuel uses, so further amendments to it have been needed by way of the clause. As we heard, the clause amends the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 to adjust restrictions on the entitlement to use rebated diesel and biofuels.

We understand from explanatory notes that the changes will affect businesses and individuals who use rebated fuels to provide electricity or heating to premises that are used for both commercial, and non-commercial purposes, businesses and individuals using machines or appliances other than vehicles for purposes relating to arboriculture, and charities operating lifeboats. I ask the Minister for further information on that last category. Can he help us better understand what issue the measures in the clause are seeking to address specifically in relation to charities operating lifeboats? Can he explain what impact the law, as it currently exists, has been having on those charities operating lifeboats?

[Gareth Davies]

Essentially, as the hon. Gentleman points out, the measure is to correct some unintended consequences. One of those does relate to lifeboats. The initial provision was to include lifeboats and their ability to use rebated fuel. It did not include tractors and geared machines, which enable lifeboats to get in and out of the water. It is not something that was raised as part of the consultation process initially, but it was raised after the legislation went through. We are now amending that to ensure that not only lifeboats but tractors and geared machines can use rebated fuel.

[James Murray]

I thank the Minister for his clear response on that point. Obviously, charities operating lifeboats are ones that we all seek to support and to ensure are not disadvantaged inadvertently by any laws. Has the Minister had any discussions with those charities about whether they have lost out because of the unintended consequences, and whether there will be any redress?

[Gareth Davies]

I personally have not had that engagement. I will look into what discussions have taken place, and I would be happy to report that back to the hon. Gentleman.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 318 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 319

Rates of tobacco products duty

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Davies]

Clause 320 and schedule 21 legislate to amend part 2 of the Finance Act 2017 to bring into scope the soft drinks industry levy on liquid flavour concentrates used in fountains, also known as dispensing machines, which combine added sugar with the concentrate when the soft drink is dispensed to produce a soft drink with at least 5 grams of sugar per 100 ml. The change takes effect from 1 April 2023.

The Government launched a consultation on the design and implementation of the soft drinks industry levy in August 2016 and set out a response confirming the broad policy approach. The soft drinks industry levy came into effect in April 2018 and supports the Government’s strategy to tackle obesity by encouraging reformulation at manufacturer level. The soft drinks industry levy applies to packaged soft drinks containing at least 5 grams per 100 ml of added sugar. Producers, manufacturers and importers of liable soft drinks must register a report and pay the soft drinks industrial levy on the volume of liable soft drinks packaged in and imported into the UK.

The soft drinks industry levy has driven substantial reformulation, resulting in a sugar reduction in soft drinks of 46% between 2015 and 2020 and the reformulation of more than 50% of sugary soft drinks in response to the levy. The changes made by clause 320 and schedule 21 will close a minor technical loophole within the soft drinks industry industrial levy, improving the consistency of its application. The changes are in line with the intent of the original legislation. The measures extend the definition of a soft drink liable to the soft drink industry levy to include packaged concentrates that are mixed with sugar when dispensed from a soft drink fountain machine. Other fountain machines used in the restaurant, retail and leisure industry that use a packaged syrup or concentrate containing added sugar are already in scope of the soft drinks industry levy.

The change will bring consistency across the soft drinks industry by ensuring that all packaged concentrates used in fountain machines, regardless of the stage when the sugar is added, are captured by the soft drinks industry levy. Existing soft drinks industry levy rules, including registration, rates, accounting and payment will apply to manufacturers and importers of flavour concentrates manufactured to be mixed with sugar in a dispensing machine. The change takes effect from 1 April 2023 and will bring consistency across the soft drinks industry by ensuring that all packaged concentrates used in fountain machines, regardless of the stage at which sugar is added, are captured by the soft drinks industry levy.

[James Murray]

I will speak briefly to clause 320 and schedule 21, which relate to the scope of the soft drinks industry levy. As the Exchequer Secretary set out, the result of these measures is that the levy will now apply to liquid flavour concentrates that are manufactured in, or imported into, the UK. The concentrates are products that are mixed with added sugar in a dispensing machine to dispense a soft drink for the final consumer.

The soft drinks industry levy was announced at Budget 2016 and came into force in April 2018. It has been targeted at producers, manufacturers and importers of soft drinks containing added sugar by encouraging the reformulation of drinks to reduce levels of added sugar and portion sizes, and the marketing of low-sugar alternatives and so on. We recognise that this technical change will bring liquid flavour concentrates within scope of the levy, and we will not oppose the clause.

[Victoria Atkins]

Out of an abundance of caution, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my ministerial interests. I am recused from this subject matter in a ministerial capacity.

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting)

James Murray Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th May 2023 Public Bill Committees

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)]

Clause 321 introduces a new domestic air passenger duty band for flights within the UK to bolster connectivity within the Union and a new ultra-long-haul band to further align the tax with the Government’s environmental objectives. The clause also sets the 2023-24 rates for both the new bands and the two existing bands that are operated by the retail price index.

Clause 322 enables the Northern Ireland Assembly to set the rate for the new ultra-long-haul band for direct flights departing Northern Ireland. The primary purpose of air passenger duties is to ensure that the aviation sector contributes to public finances, since tickets are VAT-free and aviation fuel incurs no duty.

Following a consultation on aviation tax reform in 2021, the Government announced a package of APD reforms at the autumn Budget 2021. First, the reforms will bolster air connectivity within the Union through a 50% cut in domestic APD. Some of the nations and regions of the UK are separated by sea so aviation has a critical role to play in facilitating the necessary links across our Union.

Secondly, by adding a new ultra-long-haul distance band, the reforms further align APD with the Government’s environmental objectives, recognising that aviation is responsible for 8% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions. In particular, emissions from international aviation have more than doubled since 1990, and we were responsible for 96% of the sector’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2019.

The new ultra-long-haul band, which covers flights that are greater than 5,500 miles from London, will ensure that those who fly furthest and have the greatest impact on emissions incur the greatest duty. The annual uprating for APD rates in line with RPI to the nearest pound is routine and has occurred every year since 2012. To give airlines sufficient notice, the Government announce the rates at least one year in advance.

The changes made by clause 321 implement the APD reforms and the 2023-24 rates announced at autumn Budget 2021. APD for domestic flights, except private jets, will be reduced by 50%, from £13 to £6.50 for passengers flying economy class. Overall, the Government expect that more than 10 million passengers will benefit from the reform.

The new ultra-long-haul band will be set at £91 for passengers flying in economy—a £4 increase compared with the existing long-haul band. That is expected to affect less than 5% of passengers. For the remaining 2023-24 rates where the standard uprating applies, the clause increases the long-haul rate by a nominal increase of just £3 for economy class. The rounding of APD rates to the nearest pound means that short-haul rates will remain frozen in normal terms for the 10th year in a row. That benefits more than 70% of passengers.

Clause 322 enables the Northern Ireland Assembly to set the rates for the new ultra-long-haul band for direct flights departing Northern Ireland. The rates for direct long-haul flights from Northern Ireland are already devolved. The reforms to air passenger duty will bolster Union connectivity and further align the tax with our environmental objectives. These are a routine uprating of existing rates, which represents a real-terms freeze and ensures that airlines continue to make a fair contribution to our public finances. I therefore move that the clauses stand part of the Bill.

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

As we heard from the Minister, clause 321 will introduce a new domestic band for flights within the UK and a new ultra-long-haul band covering destinations with capitals located more than 5,500 miles from London. Until the end of March 2023, there were two destination rate bands for air passenger duty: band A included those countries whose capital city is less than 2,000 miles from London, with band B covering all other destinations. From 1 April, there have been four destination bands: the domestic band for flights within the UK; band A for non-domestic destinations whose capital is up to 2,000 miles from London; band B for destinations whose capital is between 2,001 and 5,500 miles from London; and band C for all other destinations.

As the Minister explained, clause 322 makes consequential amendments to the provisions that devolve to the Northern Ireland Assembly the power to set the direct long-haul rates of APD. I understand that the changes in the clause do not impinge on the devolved powers, and the devolved rates are not affected. Rather, it updates the provisions to reflect the introduction of clause 321 and the ultra-long-haul band.

Before I address our concerns about this measure, I would be grateful if the Minister could help the Committee to understand what the situation would be if the clause passed by confirming what rates of air passenger duty would apply in a few specific instances. First, if someone were to travel by helicopter around the UK—for instance, from London to Southampton—would that be subject to air passenger duty? Secondly, if someone travelled on a private jet around the UK—say, from London to Blackpool—that was, for argument’s sake, a Dassault Falcon 900LX, what rate of air passenger duty would apply? Finally, if someone lives in the UK but was travelling to another home of theirs—say, in Santa Monica, California—what rate of air passenger duty would apply? I would be grateful if the Minister could answer those three questions.

I turn to our concerns about the clause. As the Minister might know, when this measure was first announced at autumn Budget 2021, we raised our concerns about it during the debates on the subsequent Finance Bill. We pointed out then—it is even truer today—that it could not be right for the Government to prioritise a tax cut that would be of greatest benefit to people who are able to be frequent flyers in the UK at a time when working people across the country have been hit again and again by tax rises.

As well as being the wrong priority for public money, the Chancellor announced the cut in air passenger duty just days before COP26. What is more, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out at the time, the cut in air passenger duty would in fact flow through the UK emissions trading scheme and push up electricity prices for people at home. The Government have pointed out that the introduction of a reduced domestic rate of air passenger duty has been accompanied by the introduction of an ultra-long-haul rate. However, when taken together, all the changes in the clause are still set to cost the taxpayer an additional £35 million a year. We cannot support this as a priority for spending public money, so we will oppose the clause.

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the Minister tell us how clause 322(4), which devolves these issues to the Northern Ireland Assembly, will work, given that the Assembly is not sitting at the moment? Does it mean that this will be decided centrally at Westminster? What arrangements are made for that, since, if there was no change in these areas, in the absence of the Assembly sitting, there would be a divergence between air passenger duty in one place and the other? How has the Treasury modelled that divergence, given that air passenger duty is a devolved issue, even though the devolution settlement is not working at the moment because the Assembly is not sitting?

Will the Minister update the Committee on where we are with the aviation treaties that zero-rate aviation fuel? It is an ongoing issue, given the nature of the environmental damage that is done—particularly by aviation fuel—in the higher atmosphere when airplanes fly at higher levels, which they normally do on long-haul flights. How will private jets be treated and affected, if at all, by the reduction in domestic air passenger duty, since we have a Prime Minister who seems to think that public transport is chartering a private jet for short-haul flights?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Davies]

Clauses 323 to 325 and schedule 22 provide for the 2023-24 vehicle excise duty rates and the new, reformed heavy good vehicle levy from August 2023.

The clause sets the 2023-24 vehicle excise duty rate. Since 2010, rates of VED have changed only in line with inflation, which means that drivers have not seen a real-terms increase. The clause will result in nine in 10 car drivers seeing a change to their VED liability of £20 or less next year. The Government continue to support drivers who will benefit from the extended cut and will freeze fuel duty in 2023-24, worth £100 to the average driver.

Clause 324 and schedule 22 introduce the new, reformed HGV levy from August 2023, following the end of the levy suspension period. The reforms are a further step towards reflecting the environmental performance of heavy goods vehicles. Given that the HGV levy suspension period is coming to an end, HGV VED will remain frozen for 2023 to 2024 to support the haulage sector. Finally, clause 325 removes certain circumstances in which the levy suspension period for a given HGV is extended longer than intended.

I will now go through the measures in detail. A long-standing feature of VED is that it is uprated in line with inflation, using a measure based on the retail price index. Since 2010, rates for cars, vans and motorcycles have increased only in line with inflation. The standard annual rate of VED for cars first registered since April 2017—the most common annual rate—will increase by £15, from £165 to £180. Drivers will continue to benefit from the extended cut and freeze to fuel duty in 2023-24, which taken together represent a saving of £100 per average motorist.

As for the HGV levy, which applies to all HGVs of 12 tonnes or more, it was introduced in 2014 to ensure that all hauliers, both UK and non-UK, make a contribution when they drive on UK roads. The levy was suspended in August 2020 to support the haulage sector and aid the covid-19 pandemic recovery efforts. The suspension is due to end in August 2023.

In June 2022, the Government consulted on HGV levy reform options. The consultation sought views on proposals to align a reformed HGV levy with the environmental performance of the vehicle, ensuring that levy liability is as closely aligned as possible to when a foreign vehicle is used on a major road. Having considered views on the subject, the Government decided to take forward the proposals, as announced at the Budget.

Clause 323 will result in changes to some drivers’ vehicle excise duty liabilities. That includes changes to first-year rates of VED for cars. The most polluting vehicles will pay up to £2,605, while those with lower emissions will pay nothing. Rates for vans, motorcycles and motorcycle trade licences will also change in line with RPI.

Clause 324 and schedule 22 will increase the new reformed HGV levy. That is effective from August 2023. On average, UK HGVs will pay around 20% less than under the previous HGV levy, with both UK and non-UK hauliers benefiting from a much simplified levy structure based on weight proxying CO₂. The number of rates will reduce from 22 to 6, which will make administration easier. For non-UK hauliers, the reforms also ensure that the levy is focused on road usage and is more clearly aligned with the Government’s international obligations. The most common type of HGV hauliers will pay £576 per year. The second most common type will pay £150—less than the cost of a tank of fuel. For many types of HGVs, operating costs are more than £100,000 a year; the HGV levy represents a small fraction of that.

Clause 325 is a technical anti-avoidance change. In the final year of the three-year levy suspension period, each vehicle should benefit from only up to 12 months of levy-free period. The clause ensures that by providing for a transitional payment where a vehicle has benefited from additional months of levy-free period.

The Government have tabled amendments 9 and 10 to those clauses, which address minor legislative errors to ensure that vehicle excise duty for rigid HGVs pulling trailers continues to apply as intended following the introduction of the new reformed levy. Where VED was partly set according to the vehicle weight bands of the previous HGV levy, the amendments specify the same weight bands independently of the new reformed levy. As a result, the VED due for HGVs pulling trailers does not change, in line with the Government’s policy intention.

In conclusion, a new reformed HGV levy will ensure that all hauliers continue to make a contribution when they use UK roads after the levy suspension period ends. VED has been frozen for HGVs, and for other vehicles it is rising in line with RPI only, so drivers will not see a real-terms increase in their VED liabilities. I therefore commend the clauses, the schedule and amendments 9 and 10 to the Committee.

[James Murray]

As we have heard from the Minister, clause 323 provides for changes to certain rates of vehicle excise duty by amending schedule 1 to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. As we know from announcements in the spring Budget, vehicle excise duty rates for light passenger and light goods vehicles and motorcycles will increase in line with inflation, based on RPI. We understand that the changes to rates will take effect for vehicle licences taken out on or after 1 April this year.

Clause 324 and associated schedule 22 change the HGV road user levy; they amend, as the Minister said, how it is calculated and the rates. They also remove the requirement to provide a register of HGV levy paid. The HGV levy was introduced in 2014, and is payable by both UK and non-UK HGVs when using UK roads. The Government suspended the levy in August 2020, and it will return in August this year. The Department for Transport consulted on changes to the HGV levy in June 2022. The reforms implemented by the clause and the accompanying schedule move the levy towards better reflecting the environmental performance of vehicles.

On a minor point of clarification, the explanatory note to the clause states:

“For non-UK HGVs, the reforms also ensure that the levy is…more clearly aligned with the government’s international obligations.”

Could the Minister explain what international obligations the note refers to, and how the reforms better align the UK with them? Finally, clause 325 operates alongside clause 324. It deals with circumstances where the levy’s suspension period for a given HGV is extended longer than the Government intended. As the explanatory notes on the clause make clear, in the final year of the three-year levy suspension period, which ends in August this year, each vehicle should benefit from only another 12 months of levy-free period. I understand that the clause ensures that that is the case by providing for a transitional payment where a vehicle has benefited from additional months of levy-free period, so Labour will not oppose the clause.

[Gareth Davies]

I am grateful to the Opposition for not opposing clause 325. The hon. Member rightly asked about the international aspect of the provisions on international hauliers. Perhaps I can offer additional clarification. The measures will apply only to A roads and motorways, which is in line with what happens in many other countries. On the specific international obligations that he asked about, I do not have the exact detail to hand, but I am happy to follow up on that. However, what we propose is in line with what is done by many other countries around the world.

We are often asked why the levy is restricted to certain roads. It has been assessed that rerouting to avoid the levy would not be cost-effective for hauliers. We have every confidence that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the police and our extensive automatic number plate recognition technology will enable us to enforce this measure. On the question about international obligations, I understand that the obligations may be those under the trade and co-operation agreement. I will confirm that to him later.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 323 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 324

Reform of HGV road user levy

Amendment made: 9, in clause 324, page 245, line 34, after “provision” insert “(including consequential provision)”.—(Gareth Davies.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 10.

Clause 324, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 22

Reforms of HGV road user levy

Amendment made: 10, in schedule 22, page 449, line 25, at end insert—

‘10A “(1) In consequence of the amendments made by paragraph 10, in Part 8 of Schedule 1 to VERA 1994 (annual rates of duty: goods vehicles), paragraph 10 (relevant rigid goods vehicles) is amended as follows.

(2) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—

“(2A) In this paragraph, references to “the tables” are to the tables mentioned in sub-paragraph (6).”

(3) In sub-paragraph (3)—

(a) in the opening words omit “following”;

(b) in paragraph (c), for “appropriate HGV road user levy band” substitute “vehicle excise duty band”.

(4) For sub-paragraph (5) substitute—

“(5A) The “vehicle excise duty band” in relation to a vehicle is determined in accordance with the following table—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)]

Again, out of an abundance of caution, I refer hon. Members to my entry in the ministerial register of interests. I am recused from any consideration, in a ministerial capacity, of this levy.

[James Murray]

As we have heard, clause 326 increases both rates of the landfill tax in line with inflation, rounded to the nearest 5p. The increased rates apply to any disposal of relevant materials made, or treated as being made, at a landfill site in England or Northern Ireland on or after 1 April.

The landfill tax was introduced in 1996. It increased the cost of waste disposal at landfill to encourage waste producers and the waste management industry to switch to a more sustainable way of disposing of waste material. The tax was originally UK-wide, but it was devolved in Scotland from April 2015 and in Wales from April 2018. We will not oppose the clause, but I ask the Minister to fill us in on the wider context of the landfill tax, and specifically landfill tax fraud. In a Backbench Business Committee debate on landfill tax fraud in January, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) said:

“Landfill tax fraud is a blight on communities across the country. It causes lasting damage to the environment and, of course, deprives the Exchequer of revenue.”—[Official Report, 12 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 793.]

As Members discussed during that debate, according to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ most recent annual estimate of the tax gap, the gap between landfill tax due and revenue collected in 2021 is £125 million. That is a gap of 17.1%—much higher than the overall tax gap for that year. According to HMRC’s report, the uncertainty rating for the landfill tax gap estimate is high. The then Exchequer Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), conceded in the debate that “non-compliance is high.” In responding to the debate, he set out some details of the operational resource dedicated to landfill tax non-compliance; however, I do not think that he directly answered a question that the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, put to him: how much of the £125 million tax gap identified in 2021 has been recovered by HMRC? I would be grateful if the current Exchequer Secretary could address that point.

Clause 327 amends the main rates of the climate change levy on gas and other taxable commodities, and the reduced rate percentages on those commodities paid by participants in the climate change agreement scheme from 1 April next year. The climate change levy is a tax on the non-domestic use of gas, electricity, liquefied petroleum gas and solid fuels. Energy-intensive businesses that participate in the climate change agreement scheme run by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero pay reduced rates expressed as a percentage of the four main rates of the climate change levy on the taxable commodities supplied to them.

We understand that the changes introduced by the clause were announced in the 2022 autumn statement, which froze the electricity rate, and in which it was confirmed that the climate change levy rate for LPG will continue to be frozen until 31 March 2025. It was further announced that the reduced rates of the levy for 2024-25 on gas and other taxable commodities paid by qualifying businesses in the climate change agreement scheme would be amended, so that participants will not pay more under the levy than they would have if the rates had increased in line with the retail price index.

Clause 328 increases the plastic packaging tax in line with the CPI. The plastic packaging tax was introduced in April 2022 to provide an economic incentive for businesses to use recycled plastic in the manufacture of plastic packaging. That was expected to create greater demand for the material, which would in turn stimulate increased recycling and collection of plastic waste, diverting it from landfill or incineration. I understand that the new rate maintains the real-terms value of the incentive to include 30% or more recycled plastic and plastic packaging components in a product by increasing the rate of tax in line with the CPI. As that tax has now been in place for a year, what evaluation have the Government made of it? In particular, can the Minister tell us what impact the tax had in 2022-23, in terms of fulfilling its stated aim of stimulating increased recycling and collection of plastic waste?

Clause 329 makes changes to the aggregates levy exemptions for some types of aggregate from construction sites. We understand that it replaces four exemptions for by-product aggregate arising from certain types of construction with a broader and more general one. The explanatory notes state:

“Following a review of the levy in 2019, some concerns about the operation of the levy were raised by different stakeholder groups.”

I understand that the changes were consulted on in 2021. Draft legislation was published in July 2022 for technical consultation, which has now concluded. On that basis, we will not oppose the clause.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I will confine my remarks to clause 326. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ealing North for raising landfill tax fraud and the debate on 12 January, which I contributed to at some length. As Members may know, I have the worst landfill in the country in Walleys Quarry in my constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme. The Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Blaydon, also has some experience in this area, because her constituents have suffered at Blaydon Quarry. She contributed to that debate, too.

The hon. Member for Ealing North mentioned that the tax was introduced in 1996. The differential between the rates for regular waste and inert waste has grown immensely. Now, they are £3.25 and £102.10 respectively; back in 1996, they were £2 and £7. Just as the hon. Member for Wallasey said earlier in relation to tobacco, that has increased the incentive for people to break the rules, and unfortunately, many people in the waste industry are breaking the rules. What goes on at Walleys Quarry causes misery for my constituents, as fly-tipping and everything else that goes on in the waste industry does for people around the country.

The responsibility falls primarily on the Environment Agency, which I continue to press to do more about Walleys Quarry, as well as about Staffordshire Waste Recycling Centre, which is just over the border in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), who mentioned it just yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions. Will the Minister focus on the role of HMRC in helping the EA to do its work, because prosecutions for fraud may ultimately have more effect than prosecutions under environmental regulations?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I thank the Minister for his commitment to a review of the effectiveness of the plastic packaging tax and for his clarification of some of the statistics around the tax gap. Comparing the figures that he cited with the figure of 17.1% for landfill tax fraud shows just how big the tax gap is for landfill tax fraud, and how important it is that specific action be taken. Will he explain what specific action, rather than just talk about generalities, is being taken on landfill tax fraud, which we all agree is a problem that must be tackled?

May I also remind the Minister about a question I asked earlier? I am sorry if I missed it, but I do not think he responded to my question about the £125 million tax gap identified in 2020-21 and what has been done to recover that money.

[Gareth Davies]

As I have laid out, the Joint Unit for Waste Crime is a very effective organisation. It works with more than 100 agency partners to tackle all types of waste crime, including the type that we are talking about. HMRC is targeting businesses and has the powers to compulsorily register and to issue penalties. That action is being taken by not just HMRC, but by the JUWC.

I will get back to the hon. Member on his last point; I do not have the information in front of me right now.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 326 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 327 to 329 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 330

Designation of sites

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

[Victoria Atkins]

Clauses 330 and 331 will make changes to ensure that tax sites in investment zones can benefit from an optional single five-year offer of tax reliefs, identical to those available in freeports. That will mean that businesses within the tax sites can benefit from tax and national insurance reliefs to incentivise investment and reduce the cost of hiring employees.

The Government have set out an ambitious plan for growth and prosperity, rooted in boosting the UK’s potential as an innovation nation, growing strengths in key industries to support national priorities and levelling up communities across the country. At the spring Budget, the Chancellor confirmed that the investment zones programme will catalyse 12 high-potential, knowledge-intensive growth clusters around the UK, including four across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Each investment zone will bring together local partners to drive the growth of our key future sectors, bringing investment into areas that have traditionally underperformed economically. Each English investment zone will be able to benefit from access to interventions of £80 million over five years, which can be used flexibly between spending and a single, optional five-year tax offer. The changes made by clauses 330 and 331 will enable special tax sites in English investment zones to have access to that single, optional five-year tax offer.

Clause 330 will amend existing legislation to allow investment zone tax sites to be designated via secondary legislation in the same way as freeport tax sites. Clause 331 will allow the sunset date for the investment zones, tax reliefs and special tax sites to be set in that secondary legislation. Businesses investing or hiring new employees in investment zone tax sites will have access to the following tax reliefs: first, a full stamp duty land tax relief for land and buildings bought for commercial use or development for commercial purposes; secondly, a 100% relief from business rates on newly occupied business premises, and certain existing businesses where they expand in investment zone tax sites; and thirdly an enhanced capital allowance, a 100% first-year allowance for companies’ qualifying expenditure on plant and machinery assets for use in tax sites.

Furthermore, there is an enhanced structures and buildings allowance, which provides accelerated relief to allow businesses to reduce their taxable profits by 10% of the cost of qualifying non-residential investment per year, relieving 100% of their cost of investment over 10 years. [Interruption.] It is always delightful to hear from the Speaker.

Finally, there is employer national insurance contributions relief—zero-rate employer national insurance contributions on salaries of any new employee working in the tax site for at least 60% of their time, on earnings up to £25,000 per year, with employer NICs being charged at the usual rate above that level. The relief applies for 36 months per employee. The precise costs of tax sites will vary by site; however, the estimated value of 600 hectares of tax reliefs is £45 million, to be deducted from the overall £80 million funding envelope available to an investment zone.

These clauses will help to enable the investment zones tax offer to operate in special tax sites in England. That will drive private sector activity in investment zone tax sites, which will be key to catalysing the agglomeration of businesses in high-potential, knowledge-based sectors in investment zones across England.

[James Murray]

As we have heard, clause 330 and its associated schedule, schedule 23, will extend the power to designate special tax sites to allow designation of such sites in or connected with investment zones located in Great Britain, while clause 331 makes provision related to the sunset date for tax reliefs available in special tax sites.

We know that these provisions are being introduced effectively to extend the tax reliefs available in freeport tax sites to such sites in or connected with investment zones. We know that those tax reliefs include an enhanced capital allowance for qualifying expenditure and plant machinery; enhanced structures and buildings allowance for qualifying expenditure on non-residential buildings and structures; and a stamp duty land tax relief for certain acquisitions of land. Furthermore, a secondary class 1 national insurance contributions relief for eligible employers on the earnings of eligible employees up to £25,000 per annum, which is available in freeport tax sites, is also being extended to special tax sites in or connected with investment zones.

It is worth being clear that the investment zones with which the Government are currently proceeding are different from the investment zones that the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) announced when she was Prime Minister. A significant number of councils put in bids for investment zones when they were announced under her premiership. According to the Association of Local Authority Chief Executives, councils had to spend an average of £20,000 to £30,000 on each bid, and may well have lost staff hours to work on preparing the submissions. Since then, investment zones have been relaunched, but it seems clear that the process for proceeding with the relaunched investment zones is entirely separate from the bidding process in operation for their former incarnation.

I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed how much money is estimated to have been wasted by councils, and indeed by central Government civil servants, on the now-abandoned bidding process for the original incarnation of investment zones. I assume that councils will be left out of pocket with respect to any money that they have spent on bids, and that the Government will not be considering refunding any of those costs, but I would be grateful if the Minister at the very least apologised to taxpayers for the money wasted as a result of this aborted policy.

I know that apologies can be hard to come by. Just last night, in fact, we heard the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), brazenly denying the harm that the mini-Budget last autumn caused to family finances. He refused to take responsibility for the impact of soaring rates on mortgage payers across the country and on renters, who are seeing higher costs passed on to them. However, I urge the Minister to do the right thing and take this opportunity to apologise more generally for the harm caused by the mini-Budget last autumn, and indeed by Conservative failures over the past decade.

[Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)]

Would the hon. Gentleman like to clarify whether it is Labour party policy to intervene in Bank of England decisions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

I hope that clause 332 will be of real interest to hon. Members and their constituents. In recent years, there has been a growth in what are commonly called repayment agents. Hon. Members may have received a great deal of correspondence from their constituents about such agents. They are paid tax agents who specialise solely in making claims for income tax relief on behalf of their clients.

Repayment agents can provide a useful service to taxpayers by helping them to claim reliefs or allowances to which they are entitled from HMRC, but last year HMRC received around 2,800 complaints about repayment agents from taxpayers who were unclear about the terms or conditions to which they had signed up. Those taxpayers were unaware that they were claiming through a third party and that they would be charged a fee of up to 50% of the repayment, and they were unaware of the use of assignments. Clause 332 prohibits the assignment of income tax repayments and, where such rights have been assigned, renders the assignment void. It is a consumer protection measure that is aimed at ensuring that taxpayers have better control over their income tax repayments, and I hope that hon. Members will advertise the measure to their constituents.

I turn to clauses 333 to 335. New late payment penalty and interest legislation was approved by Parliament in 2021. The new system is built on fairness and proportionality. In implementing penalty reform and interest harmonisation for VAT, we have identified some minor defects in the legislation that the clauses seek to correct. Clause 333 ensures that, for customers who use the VAT annual accounting scheme, late payment interest will not be charged on interim instalments of VAT that are paid late. Clause 334 ensures that late payment penalties do not apply to instalments payable under the VAT annual accounting scheme, and clause 335 makes a minor technical change to repayment interest on VAT to ensure that the rules operate as intended.

Clause 336 gives HMRC a power to move insurance premium tax administration forms out of secondary legislation and into a public notice. Currently, whenever administration forms need to be updated, a statutory instrument needs to be passed. Moving administration forms out of that regime will enable them to be updated without the need to pass legislation each time an update is required. That will simplify the administration of tax and support HMRC in keeping pace with developments in tax policy and insurance industry practices.

Finally, clause 337 relates to the plastic packaging tax. Currently, late payments in respect of plastic packaging tax by liable businesses and businesses that are held secondarily liable or joint and severally liable incur the same penalties. In contrast, late payments of assessments made by HMRC where a business has failed to submit a return incur different penalties. Clause 337 addresses that anomaly and amends schedule 56 to the Finance Act 2009, so that all late payments of plastic packaging tax incur the same penalties.

[James Murray]

As we heard, clause 332 introduces a new provision that renders void assignments of income tax repayments. We understand that the clause removes the ability of a taxpayer to legally transfer their entitlement to an income tax repayment to a third party such as an agent. It enables HMRC to disregard assignments when issuing income tax repayments, although we understand that it does not remove a taxpayer’s ability to use a non-legally binding nomination where they wish their repayment to be made to a third party. The decision to prohibit assignments seems to have been driven largely by the practices of Tax Credits Ltd, which ultimately led to HMRC having to issue tax refunds directly to 60,000 affected taxpayers.

The changes in the clause have been broadly welcomed by groups including the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, which pointed out that they mean that taxpayers will no longer be able to assign their rights to an income tax repayment to a third party repayment agent, and that includes taxpayers who have been tricked or misled into doing so by an unscrupulous agent. However, LITRG highlights that issues remain around the nomination process—the alternative way that I mentioned of enabling an agent to receive a payment. It is concerned that the provisions in the clause will not stop taxpayers being tricked or misled into nominating an unscrupulous agent to receive an income tax repayment. LITRG also raised its concern that responsible repayment agents, who were not misusing assignments, may exit the market, given the risk of non-payment for their work. LITRG therefore suggests that HMRC carefully monitors the impact of the provision on taxpayers and their ability to obtain refunds.

I am sure that the Minister will try to assure us that HMRC carefully monitors all its operations, but I would press her to give a more specific commitment in response to LITRG’s concerns. In particular, will she commit to publishing certain metrics proposed by LITRG, such as the total number of refund claims made and the total number made by third party companies?

Clauses 333 to 335 amend legislation governing a new penalty regime and rules on interest for VAT, which the Government announced at spring Budget 2021. As we heard, clause 333 makes two technical changes to the late payment interest rules. The first change ensures that late payment interest does not apply to instalments payable under the VAT annual accounting scheme. The second change means that when HMRC is recovering a VAT payment, the late payment interest start date is the date from which HMRC paid that amount. Clause 334 amends the Finance Act 2021 to ensure that late payment penalties do not apply to instalments payable under the VAT annual accounting scheme. Clause 335 amends the Finance Act 2009 to remove a restriction on the accrual of repayment interest on VAT paid by HMRC to the taxpayer. We will not oppose these clauses.

We understand that clause 336 will broaden existing powers, thereby enabling HMRC to move insurance premium tax forms from secondary legislation and into a public notice by way of a statutory instrument. As the Minister outlined, these technical changes are intended to reduce the administrative burden and make it easier to make administrative updates to the forms without the need for legislation. We also understand that this provides a necessary step for future legislation allowing HMRC to further digitise the insurance premium tax forms. We will not oppose the measure.

Finally, clause 337 amends schedule 56 to the Finance Act 2009, to align inconsistent late payment penalty provisions and ensure that all businesses liable for a late payment penalty in respect of the plastic packaging tax are charged the same penalty, however that liability arises. As we discussed earlier, the plastic packaging tax was introduced from 1 April last year to provide an economic incentive for businesses to use recycled plastic in the manufacture of plastic packaging, which was intended in turn to create greater demand for that material. The clause introduces a technical, administrative change and we will not oppose it.

[Victoria Atkins]

We are pleased that LITRG is one of the many groups that we work closely with. We listen to them very carefully. Indeed, I met the head of the group only last week, I think, to listen to their concerns or thoughts about the tax system.

Just to reassure hon. Members, some people want to nominate tax agents to reclaim their taxes, and we do not want to shut down that route if people want to use it and do so in a fully informed and consenting manner. That is why we are moving from the assignment process through to nominations, and taxpayers will be able to withdraw easily from nominations. The point is that nominations are not permanent; they can be changed if taxpayers should wish to do so.

That is a really critical consumer protection. It is why we have put it in the Bill. It took immediate effect, because we wanted to apply it as soon as possible to prevent taxpayers from being tied into agreements that they could not rescind. Repayment agents were made aware of the Government’s intentions to legislate in January and we would say that they will have had time to adjust to the new forms, if you like, by the time that this Bill receives Royal Assent.

In relation to the other matters, I understand that the Opposition are not challenging them, so I will stop there.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 332 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 333 to 337 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 338

Approval of aerodromes

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

--- Later in debate ---

The changes therefore create a new power to allow HMRC a discretion to extend temporary approvals in respect of the control schemes covered by certain regimes that contain similar fit and proper criteria. This does not alter the position that HMRC has judged the business to no longer satisfy the requirements to hold an approval.

[James Murray]

As we heard from the Minister, clauses 338 and 339 relate to regulated aerodrome approvals. Clause 338 introduces a power for HMRC to grant approvals to aerodromes for the purposes of the customs and excise Acts and to amend and revoke those approvals. The clause also introduces a requirement that operators of aerodromes take reasonable steps to ensure that no aircraft lands or departs in contravention of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.

Clause 339 introduces consequential amendments following the provisions of clause 338. The clauses together aim to strengthen aerodrome operator accountability by establishing an approval regime for aerodromes, which handle movements of people and goods and are not designated as customs and excise airports. We will not oppose the clauses.

Moving on to clause 340, excise businesses must be approved by HMRC to conduct certain controlled activities. HMRC can revoke a business’s approval where it fails to meet HMRC’s fit and proper criteria. Current legislation allows a temporary approval to be granted pending a review or appeal, and the temporary approval automatically ends once that review or appeal has finally been determined. We recognise, however, that that may cause hardship to an affected business as, after the final determination, there is at present no time for such a business to wind down its operations without incurring a penalty.

The measure has a new discretionary power to allow HMRC to extend a temporary approval following a final determination of a decision to revoke an approval, or a temporary approval granted during the review or appeals process. That will enable a business to wind down its operations without incurring a penalty, so we will not oppose this clause, either.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 338 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 339 and 340 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 341

Licensing authorities: requirements to give or obtain tax information

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 342 stand part.

[Victoria Atkins]

Clause 341 makes the renewal of certain licences to trade conditional on licence applicants completing tax checks in Scotland and Northern Ireland from 2 October 2023. Clause 342 makes amendments to licensing legislation in Scotland, which are consequential on clause 341

This is an extension of existing principles of conditionality that already apply to renewal applications in England and Wales for taxis and scrap metal dealer licences. The checks will confirm applicants are registered for tax and have notified HMRC of their income tax or corporation tax liability. This will make it harder for traders to operate in the hidden economy. It will also help licence holders get their tax affairs right and give honest businesses confidence that their competitors are playing by the same rules. New licence applicants will be supported and directed to HMRC’s guidance on tax obligations.

[James Murray]

We know that the Finance Act 2021 made provision for tax conditionality connected to the application for certain licences issued in England and Wales, namely licences to drive taxis, licences to drive and operate private-hire vehicles and licences to deal in scrap metal. We understand that clauses 341 and 342 extend the existing tax conditionality legislation to similar licences issued in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In Scotland, this applies to licences to drive taxis and private-hire cars, operate a booking office, and be a metal dealer, while in Northern Ireland it applies to licences to drive taxis.

We will not be opposing these clauses, but I would be grateful to the Minister if she can explain what, if any, additional resources will be made available to HMRC to effectively implement this extension of tax conditionality legislation.

[Victoria Atkins]

I wrote to the hon. Gentleman to set out the amounts and estimates that HMRC has given in its annual report and accounts about the collection protection in compliance yield, and this includes the compliance officers that would be put forward to help reduce the tax gap. They are changes to existing tax exemptions, reliefs and policies that HMRC is already resourced to administer, and it undertakes compliance interventions based on risk, with investigations normally covering multiple taxes and duties, as opposed to narrowly focusing on a single area of taxation. For example, we do not have a compliance team solely dedicated to investigating cases relating to the HGV levy, but if HMRC opened a tax inquiry into an HGV business, this would be one of many areas of taxation that it would look into to ensure that the business is compliant with its total tax obligations.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 341 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 342 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 343

Definition of “charity” restricted to UK charities

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

[Gareth Davies]

Clauses 343 and 344 will restrict UK tax reliefs to UK charities and community amateur sports clubs. Having left the EU, it is right that UK taxpayer money should support UK charities and community amateur sports clubs.

The UK is a world leader in the charitable sector. This reflects many factors, including our geography, our connectivity and our recognised legal and regulatory expertise, but also because our tax regime for charities is among the most generous of anywhere in the world. As a result, there is a thriving UK charity sector, which includes numerous charities working across the globe, comprising both UK-based charities and UK branches of international charities.

Charitable tax reliefs in the UK are given in the following areas: income tax; capital gains tax, corporation tax, VAT, inheritance tax, stamp duty, stamp duty land tax, stamp duty reserve tax, annual tax on enveloped dwellings, and diverted profits tax. Additionally, charities and CASCs can also claim gift aid of 25p for every £1 of eligible donations made by UK taxpayers. In 2021-22, UK charitable reliefs were worth £5.5 billion to the sector, up from £4 billion in 2013-14. That has remained strong despite covid-19, with the value of reliefs remaining at about £5.5 billion from 2019-20 until 2021-22.

Before the introduction of that measure, charities based in the EU or European economic area could qualify for UK tax reliefs. Now it is time to take advantage of the UK’s exit from the European Union and to restrict UK tax reliefs so that they are available only to UK charities and community amateur sports clubs. That will protect the integrity of the tax system, as UK charities and community amateur sports clubs that are located outside the UK are harder for HMRC to police.

Clauses 343 and 344 will restrict UK tax reliefs to UK charities and community amateur sports clubs. Importantly, they do not discriminate between UK charities undertaking charitable activity here in the UK or abroad. The key factor is that the charity must be governed by a UK court. The measure took effect from Budget day, but the Government have allowed a short transition period until April 2024 for those charities that HMRC has recognised will be affected by the change. That provides a window for them to register in the UK if they are eligible or, if not, to reformulate their affairs.

The measure will ensure that UK taxpayer money will be used to support UK charities and community amateur sports clubs, and the effective policing of charitable reliefs through HMRC compliance activities. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[James Murray]

As the Minister set out, clauses 343 and 344 introduce a restriction on the availability of tax reliefs so that only UK charities and UK community amateur sports clubs can gain access to UK charity tax reliefs. UK charitable tax reliefs were extended to organisations equivalent to charities and community amateur sports clubs in the EU and in the EEA countries of Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein following a judgment of the European Court of Justice in January 2009. Following the UK’s exit from the EU, however, the Government are progressing to restrict UK tax relief to UK charities and community amateur sports clubs. We will not oppose the clauses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 343 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 344 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 345

Exemptions from tax

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider that schedule 24 be the Twenty-fourth schedule to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

As we heard, the clause and schedule introduce income tax and corporation tax exemptions for thank-you payments made by local authorities to sponsors under the Homes for Ukraine sponsorship scheme. They also introduce temporary reliefs on the annual tax on enveloped dwellings and on the stamp duty land tax in connection with the provision of accommodation under the scheme.

The reliefs and exemptions were announced by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in a written ministerial statement on 31 March 2022. In that statement, she explained that

“those companies that currently qualify for the existing reliefs available from the annual tax on enveloped dwellings (ATED) and the 15% rate of stamp duty land tax (SDLT) for dwellings used in a property development or property trading business or let on a commercial basis will continue to be able to claim the relief while the dwellings are being used under the Homes for Ukraine Scheme.”

Since March 2022, many people across the country have volunteered to sponsor Ukrainians fleeing the war in their home country, and have warmly opened their homes and hosted them accordingly, and it is right that the Government support them.

--- Later in debate ---

If the Minister will not agree to these changes and give the OTS a reprieve, at least for a while, will she give us the details of how she and the Department plan to insource this important issue? If the Office of Tax Simplification ceases to exist, what guarantee can she give that this important work will continue, when there are so many other things for Treasury officials to do? Will the Minister confirm, just for my peace of mind, that the sudden abolition of the OTS was not as a result of it causing too many internal annoyances in the Treasury? It appears to have been pretty friendless. I wonder why that might be. Perhaps the Minister will give us some insight.

[James Murray]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey, who spoke to new clause 1. I will address some of the points she raised, as well as amendment 2 and clause 346.

As several Members have said, the Office of Tax Simplification was set up in July 2010. It was an independent office in the Treasury before being placed on a statutory footing by the Finance Act 2016. As we have heard, on 23 September last year, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) announced that it would be abolished. He said:

“Instead of having a separate arms-length body oversee simplification, the government will embed tax simplification into the institutions of government.”

I will return to that quote in a moment.

As hon. and right hon. Members have said, the policy was announced during the tenure of the previous Prime Minister and is being continued under the current leadership. That makes the abolition of the OTS one of the few elements of the so-called growth plan of that premiership to survive. In an earlier sitting of this Bill Committee, I commented:

“There is at the very least something ironic about a Government who use one clause of a Finance Bill to implement a recommendation of the Office of Tax Simplification and another clause of the same Bill to abolish that institution.”––[Official Report, Finance (No. 2) Public Bill Committee, 16 May 2023; c. 47.]

As was mentioned, the Chartered Institute of Taxation has pointed out that almost every Finance Act of the last decade has included measures that owe their genesis to the OTS.

To return to the reason originally cited for abolishing the OTS, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne said that the Government wanted to

“embed tax simplification into the institutions of government.”

We therefore have great sympathy with amendment 2, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North and has been spoken to. It would at least require the Chancellor to publish an analysis of the cost and benefit of the policy. That has been entirely lacking so far.

If the Government press ahead with abolishing the OTS, it is important that they make clear how they will deliver on their commitment to tax simplification. As was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey, the Chartered Institute of Taxation sent a joint letter with the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, the Association of Taxation Technicians, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 5 April. The letter covered identifying the characteristics of tax simplification; ensuring that someone is accountable for the delivery of tax simplification; including simplification declarations in tax information and impact notes; gaining external input on policy design and implementation; seeking feedback from a broad range of stakeholders; ensuring that HMRC and Treasury engagement groups have tax simplification as a standing objective; increasing awareness and improving guidance; allowing time for the development and integration of systems; and adopting a consistent approach across tax regimes.

I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on her response to the specific points set out by the Chartered Institute of Taxation. I also ask her again to set out clearly what costs and benefits, including the cost impact of any proposed new operational arrangements, she believes the abolition of the OTS will have, so that members of the Committee can consider this matter with all the relevant information to hand.

[Victoria Atkins]

For ease and convenience, I will speak to all the amendments and new clauses as well as clause 346. First, I thank the OTS—

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

Clause 347 makes changes to support the expansion of the dormant assets scheme to a wider range of assets, including insurance assets, pension assets, investment assets, client money assets and security assets such as shares. The Government estimate that up to a further £880 million will be made available for good causes across the UK thanks to the expansion of the scheme to the new sectors.

[James Murray]

As we know, under the UK’s dormant assets scheme, dormant asset funds are transferred to an authorised reclaim fund, Reclaim Fund Ltd. People can reclaim from that fund what they otherwise would have owned if their asset had never been transferred into the scheme. In some cases, it will be the monetary value of the dormant asset that will be transferred into the RFL rather than the original asset.

We understand that clause 347 ensures that the payments from an authorised reclaim fund are treated, for the purposes of income tax, as if they were from a pension asset that was initially transferred. We understand that it also seeks to ensure that, where an asset has been transferred from an authorised reclaim fund and its owner was alive at the time but subsequently dies before the asset has been reclaimed, the owner will be treated for inheritance tax purposes as still owning the original asset. We do not oppose the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 347 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 348

International arrangements for exchanging information

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 349 to 352 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

As we have heard, clause 348 consolidates existing automatic exchange of information powers that allow the Treasury to implement the domestic requirements of certain international instruments, relating to, among other things, the automatic exchange of information between tax authorities. We recognise that the purpose of the consolidation is to create a general power to allow the Treasury to give effect to existing and future international exchange of information instruments. We understand that once the Bill is enacted, the previous powers will be repealed. We do not oppose the clause.

We understand that clause 349 will allow the transfer of moneys that have remained unclaimed in the Courts Fund Office account for many years, despite attempts to trace the beneficiaries and the account titles being available to the public via the unclaimed balances database on gov.uk. We recognise that at present such moneys are being held in perpetuity unless claimed. I also noted that some moneys have apparently been held since 1726. Does the Minister know what rate of interest those moneys have been earning for the last 300 years, and how much money is expected to be earned from that interest at the point of transfer?

Clause 350 defines how HMRC’s payment functions across the taxes, duties and benefits it administers interact with financial sanctions regulations and seeks to ensure that relevant changes to UK financial sanctions regulations are automatically reflected in HMRC’s functions. I understand that subsection (1) prohibits the making of a payment, whether directly or indirectly,

“to or for the benefit of a person who is, at that time, a designated person for the purposes of financial sanctions regulations.”

We will not oppose the clause. However, the fact that subsection (1) is necessary could be seen to imply that payments have in fact been made to, or the benefit of, a person who was at the time

“a designated person for the purposes of financial sanctions regulations.”

Will the Minister confirm whether that was the case, and tell us how many payments have been made to such people, what the total value of such payments was in each of the last 10 years and under which financial sanctions regulations the people involved have been designated? Clauses 351 and 352 relate to the interpretation and short title, and we will not oppose them.

Very briefly, Mr Stringer, may I take this opportunity to thank people? I thank all Ministers and Committee members, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Wallasey, for City of Chester, for West Lancashire, for Ilford South, for Erith and Thamesmead, and for Blaydon. I thank the Clerks, parliamentary authorities and third parties, including the Chartered Institute of Taxation. I also thank you, Mr Stringer, and of course Ms McVey, who chaired the sitting on Tuesday.

[Victoria Atkins]

The shadow Minister asked about the amount of money that is expected to be paid into the consolidated fund in 2024-25. It is some £50 million. I am afraid that I do not know the interest rate charged in 1726; I obviously have room to improve on that—apologies. I suppose that in an idle moment we may put our minds to it and see whether we can come up with something, but I do not commit to that. I regret that I did not hear the detail of his questions on financial sanctions.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I thank the Minister for giving way. The fact that clause 350(1) is necessary could be seen to imply that payments have in fact been made

“to or for the benefit of a person who is, at that time, a designated person for the purposes of financial sanctions regulations.”

My question was, if that is the case, will the Minister tell us how many payments have been made to such people, the total value of such payments in each of the last 10 years and which financial sanctions regulations the people involved were designated under?

[Victoria Atkins]

I am in the situation that I find myself in from time to time, which is that, although I am extremely conscious of the desire for transparency, there is still the principle of taxpayer confidentiality. Given the sensitivities of the subject matter, and given that, I suspect, a small group of individuals would be subject to the measure, I regret that I am unable to give those details. I have to give that answer from time to time, and I know that it is frustrating for hon. Members, because I can understand why they want answers. I regret that I cannot assist the hon. Member for Ealing North on this occasion.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 348 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 349 to 352 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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.”—(Dame Angela Eagle.)

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.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

James Murray Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 20th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

That gives me the opportunity to declare that I sat not only on the Joint Committee for that Bill but on the Select Committee. There was a great deal of concentration and discussion, as I recall—the House will have to forgive me as I am rolodexing back several years in my memory—about the meaning of communications data, because of the sensitivities in relation to some of the powers rightly given to our security services in order to safeguard national security and for other purposes.

There has been some debate about how the General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act apply in the years that have fallen since. The clarification has been made because the Home Office wanted to ensure that it defines that accurately, protects citizens’ rights and permits Government agencies, law enforcement agencies and other agencies to collect and review the data necessary to protect us all. We are tabling this amendment now at the first opportunity we have had, to ensure that that phrasing still permits HMRC to collect the vital data that we need to ensure that our taxes are collected properly. To sum up my point on new clause 5, the civil information powers allow HMRC to continue to collect vital revenue to fund our public services.

In conclusion, the Government’s proposed amendments will ensure that the legislation works as it should and that HMRC has the powers it needs to continue collecting tax revenue that is vital to fund our public services that so many in our country rely on. I will, of course, address all amendments tabled by other Members when I wind up later. I very much want to listen closely to the debate that will now follow. In the meantime, I commend amendments 9 to 19 and new clauses 4 and 5 to the House. I urge hon. Members to accept them in due course.

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is important, briefly, to first recognise the context in which we consider amendments and new clauses to the Bill. Yesterday we heard the news that the average rate for a two-year fixed-rate mortgage has now breached 6% for the first time since December. That news will leave the 400,000 people across the country whose existing fixed deals end between July and September feeling anxious and fearful. They face the prospect of having hundreds of pounds less in their pockets each month when their current deal expires and they have to re-mortgage. That is not to mention all those on variable rates, who have already seen their payments rise relentlessly as a result of interest rates going up again and again.

Across the country, mortgage payers are facing interest rate rises above 6% for the second time in 12 months. The first time came in the wake of the Conservatives’ disastrous mini-budget last autumn; now it is because inflation means that banks expect interest rates to stay higher for far longer than anyone feared. The truth is that mortgage payers are feeling pain because the Tories crashed the economy and have no plan to fix it. What is more, we know the current increases in mortgage payments come after 13 years of low growth and stagnant wages. They also come after 25 tax rises by the Government in this Parliament alone, increases that have pushed the tax burden in this country to its highest level in 70 years.

I will begin considering the detail of our amendments on Report by focusing on something very rare indeed: a tax cut from this Government. That tax cut is included in clause 18. Through that section of the Bill, the Government will be spending £1 billion of public money a year to benefit the 1% of people with the biggest pension pots. Ministers may claim that their decision was driven by a desire to get doctors back into work, but since the policy was first announced the Government have flatly rejected any call to consider a fairer and less costly fix targeted at doctors’ pensions.

It is not just Labour who have been questioning the Government’s approach; the Conservative Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), said that even she was surprised that Ministers had opted for a blanket cut rather than a bespoke policy for doctors. That is why we will be voting today for our amendment 1, which deletes clause 18, thereby abandoning plans for this blanket change that fails to spend public money wisely. As our new clause 1 makes clear, the Chancellor should finally do what so many have been calling on him to do and produce an alternative approach to pensions that is targeted at NHS doctors and provides taxpayers with value for money.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I put on the record that while the hon. Gentleman quotes me correctly, I underline that I was pleasantly surprised.

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Lady, I think, for that intervention. I am trying to work out exactly what point was being made there, but I think the overall point is clear. There is concern from all sides at £1 billion a year of public money being spent on a blanket change, rather than something targeted at NHS doctors.

That failure to spend public money wisely is evident again in the Bill’s proposal to reduce air passenger duty for domestic flights, the impact of which our new clause 10 seeks to uncover. Again, at a time when public finances are under severe pressure, household budgets are being stretched in all directions and the cost of inaction on climate change grows by the day, it is baffling that a tax cut for frequent flyers is the Government’s priority for spending public money.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I just want to take the hon. Gentleman back, if I may, to the point he made on pensions. Can he not see the difficulty of having a specific regime for NHS doctors? For example, if he were to bring in a specific regime, would it apply to doctors who also work in the private sector? What would happen if an NHS doctor changed career and became an accountant? There are other areas where we have difficulty securing the services of public servants beyond a certain point, for example judges, prison governors or senior police officers. Is he proposing that each of those areas should have their own specific scheme and that therefore we should build a sort of rats’ nest of complexity around pensions?

[James Murray]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, but I feel he is misguided in claiming that it is somehow only Labour calling for a doctors-only pension scheme to be investigated. I referred to the Chair of the Treasury Committee, but I could also refer to the current Chancellor—the current Chancellor—who less than a year ago suggested that we should go for a doctors-only scheme. All we are asking is for the current Chancellor to do what he told himself to do less than a year ago and investigate the possibilities. That is important, because that is how we spend public money wisely.

To return to air passenger duty, Ministers may try to point out, when we discuss it later in the debate, that the lower rate of domestic air passenger duty has been accompanied by the introduction of an ultra long-haul rate. But when taken together, the air passenger duty changes in the Bill are set to cost the taxpayer an additional £35 million a year. That cannot be the right priority for spending public money. In Committee, we tried to get to the bottom of why this tax cut is being prioritised.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on that point. How does the shadow Minister square his comments with those made by the Welsh Government calling for air passenger duty to be devolved and abolished to support Cardiff Airport, which they have purchased?

[James Murray]

I will leave matters for the Welsh Government to the Welsh Government to set out their position. We are trying to challenge the position of the UK Government on air passenger duty.

Whatever the UK Government say, the reasoning behind air passenger duty changes have been hard to come by. In Committee, we wanted to understand why the cost of domestic flights is so high up the agenda of this Government under this Prime Minister. I asked the Minister whether, if someone were to travel by helicopter around the UK, for instance from London and Southampton, that would be subject to air passenger duty. I could equally have asked if that would be the case if someone were to get a helicopter ride from London to Dover. At the time, the Minister clarified that there is no air passenger duty other than on fixed-wing aircraft, so that anyone wanting to make short hops in a helicopter can rest assured that this tax would not apply.

I also asked the Minister whether, if someone travelled on a private jet around the UK from, say, London to Blackpool, what rate of air passenger duty would apply in that case. The Minister confirmed that private jets will not benefit from the domestic air passenger duty cut—something the Chancellor may want to let his neighbour on Downing Street know. Finally, I asked the Minister what rate of air passenger duty would apply if someone lived in the UK but was travelling to another home of theirs, let us say in Santa Monica, California. The Minister did not say at the time whether such a flight would attract the ultra long-haul rate, but my understanding is that it would not, so anyone on the Government Benches who needs to fly to their Los Angeles home will not be hit.

It is clear from the Tories’ approach that they have no idea how to spend public money wisely, and that their judgment over what to prioritise is at odds with the British people. Under the Conservatives in this Parliament alone, people across Britain have faced 25 tax rises and 12 interest rate rises. Yet the Tories think the priorities for taxpayers’ money in the middle of a cost of living crisis should be tax cuts for frequent flyers and for those with the very largest pension pots. The truth is that under the Conservatives, working people always end up paying the bill.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

On the Government Benches, we get tired of hearing from the Opposition Benches about taking taxpayers’ money. This is money the poor taxpayer is having to pay in the first place and should not be taxed on. So far as pensions are concerned, surely the aim for all of us is to have, if we can afford to, sufficient money to live free of the state and off the state at the end of our years, thereby allowing taxpayers’ money to be effectively used for those who really do need it.

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. At one point I thought he was touching on a point that we might agree on, which is that spending public money is about priorities. It is about making choices on how to spend public money wisely. That is important at any stage for any Government, but in the middle of a cost of living crisis, when household budgets are being stretched and people are facing mortgage payments going up relentlessly, it is more important than ever that we prioritise the spending of public money and spend taxpayers’ money wisely. That is really at the heart of the argument I am making. We need a fairer tax system in this country, but time and again the Conservative Government have ignored chances that were in front of them to do something about it. Our new clause 9 relates to the Government’s approach to non-dom tax status—the £3.2 billion a year loophole that the Prime Minister called “that non-dom thing”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that non-doms who could pay zero inheritance tax in other places around the world and need not spend money any at all in the UK will just stay here and be taxed under his plans? Or will they up sticks and go elsewhere—which they are very capable of doing—in which case we would lose the VAT and everything else that comes with non-dom spending in the UK?

[James Murray]

I would welcome a more extended debate about non-dom tax status. That might be slightly outside the remit of today’s debate, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to some very good research conducted by the London School of Economics and Warwick University on the impact of people potentially leaving the UK as a result of any changes in non-dom status. Getting rid of non-dom status would still net £3.2 billion a year according to the work done by the LSE and Warwick, which is based on HMRC data which they have looked at and which constitutes reputable evidence showing what would happen in that event. As I have said, we would replace non-dom status with a modern system like the one that operates in many other countries around the world.

Let me link the hon. Gentleman’s point to the point made earlier by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). This is about priorities. What is the priority for expenditure of £3.2 billion a year? Is it protecting non-dom tax status, or is it strengthening the NHS and childcare? That is at the heart of the question we are asking today.

As well as closing the non-dom loophole—about which I could speak at length— we will keep pressing the Government to close gaps in their approach to the windfall tax on oil and gas giants. Our new clause 8 presses them to think again about their investment allowance loopholes. We believe it is wrong for Ministers to leave billions of pounds of windfall profits for oil and gas giants on the table when some of that money should be helping to support families through the cost of living crisis.

We know, of course, that making our tax system fairer is not just a question of having the right legislation in place domestically; it is also a question of working with other countries to end the race to the bottom among large multinationals around the world. As our new clause 7 makes clear, we want the Government to remain committed to implementing the global agreement on a minimum rate of corporate tax. This landmark deal from the OECD is an important step towards ending the international race to the bottom on tax, as it calls time on large multinationals which operate in the UK but use low-tax jurisdictions overseas to avoid paying their fair share of tax. When large multinationals do that, it flies in the face of the British sense of fairness, it deprives public services in our country of much-needed funding, and it undercuts and undermines British businesses that play by the rules.

As we have made clear throughout consideration of the Bill, we are glad to see this legislation being implemented. We want to see the global agreement in place so that large multinationals pay a minimum level of 15% tax in each jurisdiction in which they operate. We have raised the need for such an international deal many times with the Government. Indeed, I first pressed Treasury Ministers on the subject more than two years ago, on 13 April 2021, during Second Reading of an earlier Finance Bill. At the time, we suspected that the Government might be dragging their feet because they wanted to keep alive the possibility of a race to the bottom in the future, but now, with Ministers having finally agreed to implement the deal—albeit in a version that they allowed to be weakened from what was originally proposed—opposition to it has galvanised those on the Tory Back Benches.

Two days ago, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) published an opinion piece in The Sunday Telegraph. The headline described the common-sense approach taken with the global minimum corporate tax rate—the approach that her colleagues on the Conservative Front Bench want to implement—as a

“radical plan for permanent worldwide socialism”.

The right hon. Member has tabled an amendment to this part of the Bill, which she said in her piece on Sunday was

designed to be helpful and easy to adopt.”

I would be interested to hear whether the Minister agrees, and how helpful she thinks the amendment is, because we believe that it is designed to undermine fatally the implementation of the landmark deal on a global minimum corporate tax rate. Efforts to scupper the implementation of the deal constitute an astonishing act of self-sabotage on our public finances. The reality is that if the UK walks away now from implementing these rules, businesses will simply be taxed by other countries which have implemented the deal. Let me reassure the Minister that if the amendment is pushed to a vote by Conservative Back Benchers, we will oppose it, so Ministers need not worry about whether they will be able to vote it down even if they lose their majority through a Back-Bench rebellion.

What on earth does this situation say about the state of the Conservatives and about the weakness of the Prime Minister? The amendment, which brazenly undermines the Government’s position, has been signed by right hon. and hon. Members who, within the last 12 months, have held the offices of Prime Minister, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Secretary of State for Levelling up, Housing and Communities, Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and a raft of other ministerial positions. What would happen to the implementation of these rules if the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) became the third Conservative Prime Minister to be forced from office in 12 months, and an MP who supports this amendment took over his role? The truth is the Conservatives have now become totally incapable of offering any certainty or stability, but that certainty and stability is what businesses and investors so desperately want so that they can play their part in growing our economy and raising living standards for people across Britain.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

Has the shadow Minister seen today’s report from the Institute for Public Policy Research? It states that the UK is in the middle of an economic growth “doom loop” as a result of decades of under-investment by Government and businesses. Recent statistics indicate that the UK has the lowest business investment in the G7, ranking 27th among the 30 OECD countries. Does that not suggest that businesses have no confidence in the Government’s strategy, and that alarm bells should be ringing in the Treasury?

[James Murray]

The hon. Gentleman is right to describe the state of the economy as a doom loop. It is on a managed path of decline, which even the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) described as a “vicious cycle of stagnation”. The fact is that without any stability or certainty and without a plan for growth, we cannot get the economy out of that doom loop, which is exactly what we are pressing the Government to do.

I know that Conservative Members may be feeling rebellious today, so perhaps they will consider supporting our new clause 6, which requires the Chancellor to follow Labour’s lead and set out a plan for business taxes that increases certainty and investment. The truth is, however, that even if the Conservatives did set out a plan, no one would believe that they would or could stick to it. Everyone knows that this Prime Minister is weak, hostage to his party, and unable to lead. Only a new Labour Government can bring the stability and certainty that businesses need.

That is what we need in order to boost investment, create jobs and grow Britain’s economy. That is what we need to get us off this path of managed decline, to provide security for family finances once again, and to make people across Britain better off.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I rise to speak to new clause 2 and amendment 7, which were tabled in my name and those of all the other members of the cross-party Treasury Committee.

“Taxes are far too complex.”

Those are not my words but the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he gave evidence to our Committee. The amendments to which I am speaking would give legislative effect to the recommendations of the report we published last week on the work of the Office of Tax Simplification. The report is on the Table, and I encourage all hon. and right hon. Members to read it.

Across the House, I think we can all agree that, regardless of the level of tax, the tax system itself has become far too complex. To give an example, as a result of the Committee’s current inquiry on tax reliefs, we have finally found out how many tax reliefs there are in the tax code—1,180. The unnecessary complexity in our tax code makes the tax system expensive and difficult for HMRC to administer, makes the tax system confusing and makes it difficult for taxpayers to understand the choices on offer and the consequences of those choices for their after-tax income.

A complex tax system can be hugely costly for taxpayers and for those responsible for compliance with the tax code. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury was kind enough to give evidence to our Committee on the VAT system last week, and she described it as the “most complex” part of the tax system. VAT creates a crippling compliance burden for small businesses and, as a result, there is a massive pile-up of companies just underneath that £85,000 turnover threshold. This shows that small, potentially dynamic, growing businesses—the engines of our economy—would rather stay under the threshold than deal with the VAT system.

Unfortunately, the VAT threshold is far from the only cliff edge in our tax and benefits systems. At worst, these cliff edges result in people being worse off for earning more money. In recent evidence to a joint session of the Treasury Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee, we heard how people can suddenly find themselves much worse off, after losing entitlements such as free school meals and council tax support, when they earn only a little more money. Indeed, next winter a person who earns an extra £1 will take home £900 less because they lose the cost of living support entitlement, which we reflected in a recent report. People would actually be better off by working less, or perhaps not working at all, and surely that is something we do not want to see in our tax and benefits systems.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I take this opportunity to thank the many people who have supported me and my colleagues throughout the consideration of this Bill, not least all my colleagues on the shadow ministerial team, the Whips and the Opposition Back Benchers. I also thank the Clerks and parliamentary staff, and third parties, including the Chartered Institute of Taxation, which always provides invaluable support and evidence for us and all Members of the House.

Let me speak briefly to this Bill, which we have considered in detail over recent months. Our feeling as we approach the end of this is that it could have been a chance to make the tax system fairer. A fairer tax system is desperately needed after 13 years of low growth and stagnant wages, and after 25 tax rises by the Government in this Parliament alone—increases that have pushed the tax burden in this country to its highest level in 70 years. But instead, we see the Government prioritise £1 billion of public money a year to benefit the 1% of people with the biggest pension pots. They are prioritising a tax cut for frequent flyers. They are refusing to scrap the non-dom tax status. They are refusing to close windfall tax loopholes. And they are spending their time battling their own MPs over implementing common-sense plans to stop multinationals race to the bottom on tax.

Beyond any individual tax changes, what British businesses and families need now is a credible, ambitious plan from the Government to grow the economy and to make everyone in every part of our country better off. The failure to do that is perhaps the greatest failure of this Bill and the approach of this Government.

The Conservatives have had 13 years and they have failed. As long as they stay in power, the vicious cycle of stagnation stays, too. It is time for a new Government who will get us off this path of managed decline and make sure that people and businesses in Britain succeed.