Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Jane Ellison and Peter Dowd

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

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)]

I will speak briefly, as we have a fair amount to get through this afternoon. Obviously, I shall attempt to address any points that are made during the debate.

The Bill is progressing on the basis of consensus and therefore, at the request of the Opposition, we are not proceeding with a number of clauses. However, there has been no policy change. These provisions will make a significant contribution to the public finances, and the Government will legislate for the remaining provisions at the earliest opportunity, at the start of the new Parliament. The Government remain committed to the digital future of the tax system, a principle widely accepted on both sides of the House. We recognise the need for the House to consider such measures properly, as called for by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) and his Treasury Committee. That is why we have decided to pursue those measures in a Finance Bill in the next Parliament, in the light of the pressures on time that currently apply.

Clauses 1 and 3 provide for the annual charging of income tax in the current financial year and maintain the basic, higher and additional rates at the current level. The annual charge legislated for in the Finance Bill is essential for its continued collection, and it will enable the funding of vital public services during the coming year. Maintaining these rates, while increasing the tax-free personal allowance and the point at which people pay the higher rate of tax, means that we are delivering on important manifesto commitments. On top of that, as of April this year, increases in the personal allowance since 2010 will have cut a typical basic-rate taxpayer’s income tax bill by more than £1,000, taking 1.3 million people out of income tax in this Parliament alone.

Clause 4 will maintain the starting-rate limit for savings income—applied to the savings of those with low earnings—at its current level of £5,000 for the 2017-18 tax year; clause 6 will charge corporation tax for the forthcoming financial year; and clauses 17 and 18 will make changes in the taxation of pensions. Clause 18 legislates for a significant anti-avoidance measure announced at the spring Budget. It will make changes to ensure that pension transfers to qualifying recognised overseas pension schemes requested on or after 9 March 2017 will be taxable. The charge will not apply if the individual and the pension savings are in the same country, if both are within the European economic area or if the pension scheme is provided by the individual’s employer.

Before the changes were announced in the spring Budget, an individual retiring abroad could transfer up to £1 million in pension savings, without facing a charge, to a pension scheme anywhere in the world provided that it met certain requirements. Overseas pension transfers had become increasingly marketed and used as a way to gain an unfair tax advantage on pension savings that had had UK tax relief. That was obviously contrary to the policy rationale for allowing transfers of UK tax-relieved pension savings to be made free of UK tax for overseas schemes. This charge will deter those who seek to gain an unfair tax advantage by transferring their pensions abroad. Exemptions allow those with a genuine need to transfer their pensions abroad to do so tax-free.

Clause 17 will make various changes in the tax treatment of specialist foreign pension schemes to make it more consistent with the taxation of domestic pensions.

Clause 21 will simplify the payment of distributions by some types of investment fund. Following the Government’s introduction of the personal savings allowance, 98% of adults have no tax to pay on savings income. In line with that, the clause will remove the requirement to deduct at source tax that must subsequently be reclaimed by the saver.

Clauses 45 to 47 provide for the removal of the tax advantages of employee shareholder status for arrangements entered into on or after 1 December 2016, in response to evidence suggesting that companies were not using the status for its intended purpose and that it therefore was not delivering value for money. The status was introduced to increase workforce flexibility by creating a new class of employee, but it became apparent that it was being widely used as a tax planning device, rather than for its intended purpose of helping businesses to recruit.

Evidence suggests that companies, particularly those owned by private equity funds, were using employee shareholder status as a tax-efficient way to reward senior staff. In many cases, contract provisions were used to replace the statutory rights that had been given up, which was undermining the purpose of the status. That continued to be the case despite the introduction of the £100,000 lifetime limit on capital gains tax-exempt gains in the 2016 Budget. The Government therefore announced in the 2016 autumn statement that they would remove the tax reliefs associated with the status and close the status itself to new arrangements at the next legislative opportunity. The action that we are taking tackles abuse and increases the fairness of the tax system.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her opening remarks about consensus, with which I fully concur. We are here today to debate what is effectively a condensed version of the Bill for which my colleagues and, indeed, everyone else had been preparing, with a view to taking part in a number of Public Bill Committee sittings over a number of weeks to scrutinise properly the longest Finance Bill that has ever been produced. That is the context in which I shall make my comments.

The Prime Minister’s announcement outside No. 10 and the subsequent vote mean we do not have sufficient time in this Parliament to give the full Bill the proper parliamentary oversight it requires and deserves, as I am sure Members will understand. It is clear that the Treasury was unaware of the Prime Minister’s plans for a snap election—otherwise, it would not have introduced the longest ever Finance Bill—but the Opposition recognise the unique scenario we are in and the Government’s responsibility to levy taxes, and I am sure the Minister recognises our responsibility to scrutinise the Bill in as open and transparent a manner as we possibly can. That is why we have acted in good faith to ensure that a version of the Bill can pass before Parliament is dissolved.

Our approach to the pre-election process and the presentation of the condensed version of the Bill has been underlined by two concerns: fiscal responsibility balanced against parliamentary scrutiny. The Opposition have a responsibility to taxpayers to ensure as little economic disruption as possible; we will therefore not attempt to block any measure in the Bill that has to be passed to ensure business as usual for our public services, such as on income tax, and nor will we obstruct tax that is already in the process of collection. But of course we cannot give the Government carte blanche, as we have made clear.

There are many clauses in the Bill that we can and should wait to deal with until after the general election, as that would provide the opportunity for them to be properly scrutinised. The one exception is the soft drinks levy, which I will speak about later.

In relation to alcohol duty, the Bill includes measures that have already been implemented but that we opposed in the Budget resolutions. They include the Government’s decision to raise alcohol duty in line with inflation, raising the price of a pint of beer by 2p, a pint of cider by 1p and a bottle of Scotch whisky by 36p. As I said on Second Reading, rising business rates and rising inflation are creating a perfect storm for many small businesses. Therefore, the decision to raise this duty is a risk.

Another measure that we would have liked to avoid but that is included as a result of the necessity of the compressed process that this Bill is going through is the rise in insurance premium tax. It has already been doubled and this raises it further. Had there been a longer process, we would have sought to challenge that, as we did at the Budget resolution stage, so there is no surprise in this, but the reality is that the measure is already in effect due to the resolutions.

On tax avoidance, it is time for a wholesale shift in how we approach taxation and the treatment of self-employment given the rise of the gig economy in recent years. The Bill originally contained a number of initiatives, and no doubt we will come back to them in due course.

I welcome the Minister’s statement on the digitalisation of tax. It will be a great relief to many small businesses given the onerous requirements for quarterly reporting. No one is against a move to a digital tax system, but we do not agree with the rush to implement it.

A large portion of the Bill relates to the introduction of the soft drinks industry levy, which the Government have consulted on heavily and on which they have cross-party support in this House. The levy has popular public support, too, as a poll has indicated. I want to take this opportunity to pay particular tribute to Jamie Oliver and the Obesity Health Alliance, who have campaigned tirelessly on this issue and on the need for a joined-up Government obesity strategy, and I must compliment the Minister, who in her current and previous roles has been a strong advocate for the levy. We would like to see a review of the sugar tax levy in due course, if possible. The Minister might well wish to comment on that. I am sure that a range of issues, such as in relation to multi-buy discounts, could form part of this.

In conclusion, as a responsible Opposition, we will not stand in the way of passing a Finance Bill before the election, as that is a necessity. There are some measures that a Labour Government would bring back, and we will have an opportunity to scrutinise them in due course, but we need to get this through and we need to be responsible, and we will support the Government where required.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Jane Ellison and Peter Dowd

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

[Jane Ellison]

I will make a little more progress and then I will happily give way.

Before setting out the Bill’s contents in more detail, I should of course refer to the fact that the Prime Minister has today announced her intention to lay before this House a motion calling for an early general election.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

When?

[Jane Ellison]

Members should be paying more attention. Earlier today the Leader of the House updated right hon. and hon. Members on how that motion, if it is passed, will impact on the business of the House. We hope to hold constructive discussions with the Opposition, through the usual channels, on how this Bill will proceed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

If that suggestion came from the Government side, I would say that I would listen to the representations, and we would listen to any representations, so to speak, that would help small businesses.

Moving on to alcohol duty, the Finance Bill will only further undermine our local pubs, which are already under threat, with 29 pubs closing every week. While we welcome plans to make tax digital, the Government’s plan will shift huge administrative burdens on to small businesses and the self-employed, who are just trying to pay the taxes they owe—so much for the Conservatives being the party of small business. There is no reason businesses should have to submit quarterly digital tax returns, particularly when they lack the time, resources and capacity to convert records into digital standards on a frequent basis. All that comes when they are under stress from business rates. That is why we support the view of the Treasury Committee and of small business owners and the self-employed that it is better to exempt the smallest taxpayers from quarterly reporting and to phase in making tax digital to ensure that implementation is right for all, rather than the Conservative party wasting taxpayers’ money and time by correcting mistakes further down the line.

Making tax digital will also place new burdens on HMRC, which is already teetering on the edge after the constant slashing of its resources over the past few years. Thousands of hard-working staff have already been dismissed, and taxpayers are waiting on the phone for hours, which costs far more than the cuts have saved. The closure of dozens of tax offices across the country is still to come, putting thousands of jobs at risk in my constituency alone. How will HMRC cope with the ever-increasing complexity of its responsibilities with just a skeleton staff? How will any of the “reduction in errors” expected from making tax digital actually come about? How will we ever close the tax gap when there are no tax inspectors left to help taxpayers get their returns right and when HMRC has been filched of the resources it needs to run a service? It is a total false economy.

[Jane Ellison]

I am sorry, but I rise to defend HMRC. What the shadow Minister just said is the most outrageous attack on the hard-working men and women of HMRC. Far from people hanging on the phone for hours and the various other exaggerations that we just heard, I suggest that he look at the publicly available figures for HMRC performance in a range of areas, where he will see that what he said is far from the truth. HMRC’s performance has been excellent in recent years in many areas, as shown not least by the £140 billion extra raised since 2010 from avoidance and evasion.

[Peter Dowd]

That attempt at plausibility has gone amiss yet again. The reality is that we are constantly contacted by people about HMRC. Those on the frontline, such as the thousands in my constituency, are doing a damn fine job. The idea that I would attack thousands of people from my constituency is complete nonsense. They are struggling against the odds, which have been stacked against them by this Government. That is the reality. The Finance Bill was a failure before it was even started. It is a busted flush.

The Minister referred earlier to helping homeowners. If the Government are setting aside resources to help homeowners, such as through lifetime ISAs, they should also tackle the threat to the stability of the housing market from organisations such as Bellway, which is tying people to their homes through its leaseholds. That is a scandal and an outrage. The housing market is in danger if such scams are allowed to continue. The Government are quite rightly putting in resources to fund the housing market, so if we are to deal with the issues in it, they should be calling those organisations in, getting a grip on them and telling them to stop ripping off the people who bought homes from them.

The Bill is making income tax payers, small and medium-sized businesses, and the self-employed pay the bill for the endless stream of tax cuts for corporations and the super-rich. It takes no serious action to tackle tax avoidance, putting in place get-outs and workarounds that mean it is just another smokescreen.

Beer Duty

Debate between Jane Ellison and Peter Dowd

Tuesday 7th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jane Ellison]

Again, that is perhaps for a wider debate, but, as I recollect from my time as Public Health Minister, the industry was rightly praised for the extent to which it stepped up to address issues with certain products. A lot of alcopop products have been phased out by some producers who decided to change their portfolio. One or two speakers referred to the bigger chains and the fact that they have tried to shift their portfolios as they recognise the challenges that certain products pose, especially for younger drinkers. It is worth putting on the record a recognition of the industry’s actions in that regard, although there is always the challenge to do more.

I hope that I have been able to reassure Members on some issues. In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay said that the industry wanted to make sure it was not overlooked, and I can reassure him that it is not. Its voice is rightly heard loud and clear across the House and within Government. We have regular meetings and dealings with the industry and we listen very carefully to all the points made.

[Peter Dowd]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jane Ellison]

Very briefly.

[Peter Dowd]

I take the point that the Minister makes about the industry not being overlooked, but it is important to put this in context. For example, according to the industry, the business rates rise will put a 15% increase on pubs’ costs and 23% on restaurants’ costs. That is an additional £300 million to £500 million a year. The Minister should perhaps give more consideration to that.

[Jane Ellison]

If the shadow Minister thinks that the Government have not given consideration to business rates in recent weeks, he has not been looking at the newspapers. Of course it is an important issue and we have given consideration to it. Many establishments in different parts of the country will gain from the business rates revaluation. More businesses will see their rates cut or frozen than will see an increase. For those that see an increase, transitional relief is available, so it is important for people to look at that. No doubt people will look at the impact of that fiscally neutral revaluation in their own areas.

To return to my previous point, the industry’s voice is rightly heard loud and clear in Government. It has powerful advocates in all parties in this House. The debate has been constructive and has brought out important issues. I have heard all hon. Members’ contributions today and will take them as representations ahead of tomorrow’s Budget.

Value Added Taxation

Debate between Jane Ellison and Peter Dowd

Tuesday 21st February 2017 General Committees

[Peter Dowd]

I have raised the issues of tax avoidance and the green tax. On the optimism about getting the measure through, do we believe that we will be able to introduce it within the next two years? How long is a piece of string in relation to this matter? I hope that we do not have to hold our breath for too long.

[Jane Ellison]

I will make a general point and then respond with a bit more detail on fraud. I could not disagree more with the shadow Minister, although I thank him for his kind words on the state of my voice—I apologise to colleagues. It is certainly not the case that the vote to leave the European Union makes the debate “obsolete” and our participation in and engagement with the agenda pointless. For a start, there are UK businesses that have EU subsidiaries that will continue to be affected by the VAT rules within the EU, so it is important that the rules work well and are subject to sensible reform. The UK has always been a good influence for pragmatic reform in all such regards.

The precise arrangements under which we operate outside the EU will be subject, as we all know, to detailed and complex negotiation once article 50 has been triggered, but the EU will remain a major trading partner. We are leaving the EU; we are not leaving Europe. It will be an extremely important commercial relationship. The extent, therefore, to which the direction of travel on EU VAT rules aligns with our own priorities regarding simple and pragmatic regulation that is not burdensome to small businesses is, and will remain, extremely important.

Before we came into the debate, I asked my officials about how we will influence policy once we are outside the EU. The reality is that there are people who are not in the EU now who will influence and have a view about the EU’s VAT proposals. Equally, the OECD does a lot of work in that respect. There is a broad alignment of direction of travel between that organisation and the EU, and to that extent we are an important influence within the OECD. I reject the idea that the debate is obsolete and that our interest ceases once we are outside the EU. It remains the case that we need the rules to function sensibly and in a way that is as unburdensome as possible and addresses fraud, to which I now turn.

No system will be entirely fraud-free, and the concern for the UK and member states more generally about any move to a new system is that any change could introduce a new type of VAT fraud. In all aspects of the tax system, we have to consider where people might look to exploit the gap created by a change. In the UK, the level of VAT fraud attributable to criminal attacks on cross-border trade has fallen from a peak of between £2.5 billion and £3.5 billion in 2005-06 to between £500 million and £1 billion in 2014-15. The Commission has done various studies, and the one from 2013 estimates that such supplies amount to about €184 billion-worth of VAT for the UK alone, in terms of intra-EU supplies. Any change to the VAT rules on intra-EU supplies that would introduce a new type of fraud has, therefore, the potential for huge losses and it is important that we tread carefully. Within any proposal for a definitive VAT system, that will be an area for great scrutiny. We welcome the Commission’s engagement with us and its acceptance that member states will need to work very closely together to explore and evaluate.

[Peter Dowd]

I was trying to make a point about the obsolete nature of this debate. Would the Minister agree that there is a big difference between having a debate when a member of the European Union, with access to the single market and so on, and when outside the Union? We have been discussing it for several years; we are moving out and the EU know that, so this debate is to some extent pretty obsolete.

[Jane Ellison]

Without rerunning the referendum campaign, those issues were explored. I do not accept the basic premise, for the reasons I have given. Many businesses will continue to trade within the EU and have EU subsidiaries. The EU will remain a hugely significant trading partner and, as with all our trading partnerships around the world, we would look to bring UK influence to bear in a way that would support our own economic goals. There is a mutual benefit in having rules that work for everyone. We will also be a major trading partner for many EU members when we are outside the EU. Those are also important trading relationships. To that extent, there is mutual interest in making sure that we continue to move in a broad direction of travel and that we bring UK influence to bear.

When I was Europe Minister in the Department of Health, my experience was that the UK perspective on regulation, particularly with regard to the burden on business, was always felt to be a pragmatic and valuable contribution. I have no reason to think that that will change afterwards, albeit that relationships are clearly going to be in flux over the coming period of negotiation.

[Peter Dowd]

I take the Minister’s point, but the first sentence in the document is:

“This action plan sets out the pathway to the creation of a single EU VAT area.”

That is in the context of the single market. Does the Minister not agree that she is putting her head in the sand in the way that she is continuing to discuss this matter?

[Jane Ellison]

I am not sure I can add a great deal more. No, I do not have my head in the sand. I am being practical, as many of us now have to be. As Ministers, many of us are engaged on a day-to-day basis with the practicalities of how we move forward.

To reiterate, when we are outside the EU, it is probably going to remain our most important trading relationship. Therefore, it is vital that we continue to be good EU members while we are in, and that we continue to be engaged, practical and positive once we are out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison]

I will reflect and try to understand what was just said.

[Peter Dowd]

Just a final question from me. The Minister also did not answer the question from the hon. Member for Wycombe about the tampon tax. Although the Government have legislated to get rid of the tampon tax, depending on whether we are in or out of the Union, does the Minister believe that we will be able to implement a zero rate on the tampon tax before we leave the Union? What is the real possibility of that happening?

[Jane Ellison]

We have taken the House’s instructions very seriously. There was not just the debate on Report last year, to which I responded; this has been a live debate probably for my adult lifetime, and there have certainly been a lot of debates in the House in recent years, so we have been actively pursuing this issue. I recently detailed in a written answer some of the extensive engagement we have had at ministerial level and through letters at official level.

While we are in the EU, both sides continue to be bound by existing rights and obligations, and EU law allows for a reduced rate of not less than 5% to be applied to those products. We apply the lowest reduced rate, but we cannot apply a zero rate until there is an EU legislative change. We continue to push for it and to engage on the issue very actively, but the EU legislation can be initiated only by the Commission, and to date it has not provided the proposal that it was planning to bring forward before the EU membership referendum. We continue to push for the proposal, and we have tried to find ways of accelerating the prospects of a change, but it is likely that it will feature only as part of the VAT rates review that we anticipate will happen towards the end of this year. We will continue to keep the House updated, and no doubt we will return to the issue in the debates on this year’s Finance Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, who spoke for the Scottish National party, for her wide-ranging contribution. I note that she made a bid with regard to police and fire services to add to the Treasury’s £30 billion and counting of VAT bids. We have explored the issue of the VAT incurred as a result of the changed arrangements, so she will be familiar with the point that I am going to make. That issue was in the business case for the changed arrangements. The Scottish Government were warned repeatedly that that would be the result of the way that they restructured emergency services, so it is surprising that the SNP keeps raising the issue as if the change was somehow imposed from the outside. The Scottish Government were alerted at the time. Our position on that remains unchanged, but as I said, I will add it to the list of things for which people want to see relief, along with the others that she mentioned.

I agree with the hon. Lady more—I think we both perhaps disagree slightly with the shadow spokesman for the Labour party—on her point that it remains very much in our interests to continue to engage with this debate. I will not speculate or second-guess the outcome of our Government’s negotiations or where the EU Commission is going on this, but there is a mutual interest in smooth and competitive trading arrangements. European markets account for around half the UK’s overall trade and foreign investments; around 3.5 million jobs. We will therefore continue to engage extremely actively and constructively while we are in the EU. However, it remains the case that even once we are outside it, the EU VAT system is influential. It is in our interests to ensure, to the extent that we can, that it is aligned with OECD and other international work, to take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe that this debate is wider than the EU.

We will remain engaged and there is mutual benefit, not just because of businesses that have EU subsidiaries. Because of the cross-border nature of trade, there is mutual advantage in making sure that arrangements make sense, both within and without the EU. I reject the counsel of despair from the Opposition Front Bench that there is no point in doing this—there is every point.

[Peter Dowd]

I am surprised the Minister has taken that view. It is a complete distortion. We are talking in the context of the document before us. This debate is specifically in relation to the document before us. It has taken years to get to this position. We are only two years from leaving the EU, and the idea that this has to do with post-Brexit negotiations is complete and utter tosh. Does the Minister agree that there is a difference between trying to saddle us, in relation to post-negotiation deals, with this and trying to deal with this specific issue? The two are completely different and the Minister should know that.

[Jane Ellison]

The Minister does know that, but the point I am making is that we are obviously in the EU until we are not. It continues to be in our interest to influence debate. I think I have engaged very directly with the shadow Minister’s point. The point I have been trying to make is that this is a broader challenge than just within the EU. The international direction of travel on VAT remains important. The extent to which, for example, better co-operation is enshrined within new systems will provide better information on which we can help to shape policies around supplies across borders.

The OECD is already looking at ways to improve international co-operation, so there is every reason to continue to engage with this agenda. It is nonsense to say that it is irrelevant, even though we will be outside the EU in due course. The extent to which we have a degree of alignment in objectives and that direction of travel between the EU and other major trading blocs, and international trading and economic organisations such as the OECD remains fundamentally important because they have at their heart the desire to find some key principles around which we can all agree that will facilitate trade, less fraud and lower burdens on business across the piece.

I end where I began by saying that this is an important issue on which we will continue to engage while we are in the EU, and continue to influence in a number of different ways once we are outside it.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jane Ellison and Peter Dowd

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

There are a number of things. I reflected on them during the Opposition day debate on this subject when, as Labour Front Benchers will remember, I accepted their motion. We have of course learned a number of lessons, including on how Ministers monitor colleagues’ views about the way in which we deal with their concerns on behalf of their constituents. HMRC has confirmed that it is not planning a contract of this nature for this particular operation, but it will have more to say when it responds both to the PAC and to the report.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

Given the NAO’s excoriating report on Concentrix’s failure to achieve savings targets, performance targets, serviceable staffing levels, sufficient levels of training, call handling accuracy, proficient contract management and competent decision making—while, unbelievably, increasing its commission almost threefold—would not the Chancellor’s time be better spent concentrating on getting a modicum of efficiency into HMRC, rather than popping off to Davos for a winter sojourn?

[Jane Ellison]

First, I want to say that many tens of thousands of people work for HMRC. It would do their morale a power of good if people in this House reflected on their current excellent performance and the improvements they have made on customer service compared with two years ago. I want to compliment them publicly on the improvements they have made.

We have accepted that mistakes were made on Concentrix, and that is the reason why the agreement was terminated. We will reflect on that further when we respond to the National Audit Office report.

Corporate Tax Base

Debate between Jane Ellison and Peter Dowd

Tuesday 20th December 2016 General Committees

[The Chair]

We have until 10 am for questions to the Minister. I remind Members that they should ask questions, not make statements. There will be a chance for debate following the questions.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Hanson. If I may, I will set out a series of questions, which the Minister can pick up if she wishes.

First, in the light of paragraph 1.3 of the European Scrutiny Committee’s report, which indicates that the Commission has formally withdrawn its 2011 proposal for the introduction by Council directive of a common consolidated corporate tax base, or CCCTB—it almost sounds like the acronym for a children’s programme—and the fact that seven other national Parliaments have given a reasoned opinion why the proposal fails to adhere to the subsidiarity principle, as the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole indicated, does the Minister acknowledge that the issue is in effect a dead duck, and that scrutiny and debate of it is therefore perhaps a little academic?

Secondly, does the Minister acknowledge, as noted in paragraph 1.3 of the report, that the question of the UK introducing these newly proposed directives is academic, given that they are provisionally lined up for implementation on 1 January 2019 and 1 January 2021 respectively—unless, of course, Brexit does not mean Brexit?

Thirdly, the European Scrutiny Committee’s report also highlighted that the Government had

“completely failed to provide either any substantive analysis or its view on whether the proposals are compatible with the principle of subsidiarity.”

The Minister referred to that, but the Committee specifically said that the Government had not provided any information. Why is that?

Fourthly, in paragraph 1.7 of its report, the European Scrutiny Committee expressed surprise that the Government had acquiesced to the ECOFIN conclusions of 6 December 2016 about an EU corporate tax system, given their apparent view—as set out by the Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke), in response to the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) on 29 March—that the CCTB would undermine our sovereignty and

“risk harming the competitiveness and growth prospects of the Single Market.”

Does the Minister agree with that conclusion of the European Scrutiny Committee?

Finally, given that the issue is academic for two reasons—namely that the Government will not sign up to the CCTB and we will be virtually out of the EU by the time any progress is made on the issue—what alternative do the Government have when it comes to tackling profit shifting and unintentional double taxation across Europe and beyond?

[Jane Ellison]

I should perhaps say in anticipation that if I cannot respond to any questions from colleagues, I will of course write to them. I hope that satisfies hon. Members.

I will deal with the points raised. There was a general question about subsidiarity. We do not believe that either the CCTB or CCCTB are necessary for the internal market to function effectively, so we do not accept the assumptions that appear to underpin the Commission’s proposal. At present, we are therefore not convinced that the proposal is consistent with subsidiarity.

The hon. Member for Bootle mentioned ECOFIN’s conclusions. They were high level in nature and do not commit the UK to anything. The Government have made our reservations about the proposals clear. As directives on direct tax, the files require the unanimous approval of member states before they can be agreed. We will continue to engage constructively. As I said, as can be seen from our co-operation on the OECD project and the substantial number of measures we have passed since 2015 alone, we are clearly very supportive of the intended direction of travel. However, we will not sign up to anything that unduly restricts our sovereignty over direct tax, as the current version of the file does.

The legal base was also mentioned, which I touched on. Article 115 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union provides for EU legislation that directly affects the single market. While we think that it might be possible to make the case that that article is an acceptable legal base, we have broader reservations about whether the proposals can achieve their objectives, as I have set out.

The shadow Minister asks what is envisaged as we go forward; that question quite reasonably arises whenever we debate EU matters. He mentioned the timing, which clearly relates to when we will leave the EU. UK companies that operate in the EU and meet the conditions of the CCCTB would need to understand and operate under its rules if it were to come into effect. The amount of profit allocable to UK activities will remain the same.

From the perspective of double taxation relief, our rules and treaties should continue to operate as they do now. In fact, we have double taxation treaties in place with all of our European partners—as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath knows; we debated this on Friday—so we are not dependent on EU laws alone on such matters. Those are already in place and will continue to operate as they do now, so we do not think that that is too much of a material concern. I think I have touched on all the key points. Subsidiarity was mentioned, but I think I have alluded to it sufficiently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison]

I thank colleagues for their contributions, which included a typically thoughtful speech from the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. I will not detain the Committee too long in drawing some closing thoughts together. I thank the members of the European Scrutiny Committee for recommending this debate. The Government will continue to respond to these important debates, allowing parliamentary scrutiny of EU proposals. I take the point that the hon. Member for Bootle made, but I would not go as far as to say that this is all a pointless exercise.

[Peter Dowd]

I understand where the Minister is coming from, but I want to be clear: I was not trying to say that this is a pointless exercise—it is absolutely crucial that we have scrutiny of these matters. The point I was trying to make was that much of the scrutiny focused on what happened in the past, not what will happen in the future. We are having debates and discussions about things that are not really going to take us forward. That is the point I was trying to make—not that it was pointless, but that the scrutiny is the wrong scrutiny.

[Jane Ellison]

A fair point, and I welcome the clarification, but I would still slightly disagree. The debates we have been having about the challenges of international taxation and multinationals, which were laid out eloquently by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, are ongoing. They have taken place in the context of the G20 and the OECD, and will continue to take place in the EU. We will continue to have those debates after our exit from the EU because, as people have said, we are leaving the EU, not Europe, and we will continue to have very important relationships. It is important that we engage with this direction of travel, because this is hardly going to be an overnight process.

There was a slight implication in the contribution from the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland that compared to the OECD, the EU was a model of speedy progress; that is where I would sound my only note of scepticism. It is clear that we will be engaging on these matters for a long time to come, in a range of international forums, so the debates that we have are useful. They have been echoed in other countries. Other people have expressed issues and concerns, as we have as a country, and there have been other reasoned opinions offered.

Savings (Government Contributions) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Jane Ellison and Peter Dowd

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Jane Ellison]

I will try to observe your stricture, Mr Wilson, and not go over ground that we have already covered.

The Government do not disagree with the intention that everyone should get good advice before they take out a pension, and I certainly would not argue with the fact that for many of us, however well-informed we might like to think ourselves, such things can be confusing. The reason I will ask that the clause be withdrawn is simply that the solution it presents is not correct. Also, there are things in place to steer people, which I will touch on.

It is worth reminding the Committee about the definition of advice and guidance. “Advice” is financial advice involved in the provision of a personal recommendation for a specific product. It takes into account the wider circumstances of the person to whom the advice is given, and must be suitable for them. The definition also mentions regulated products. That is at the heart of the matter. I give a commitment that the Government will ensure that clear and accessible information about the lifetime ISA and Help to Save is available, so that potential customers can make an informed choice about whether the accounts are right for them.

Our impact assessment, which was based on a costing certified by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, shows that our costings do not assume that people will opt out of workplace pensions to save into a lifetime ISA. However, as I have outlined, it is ultimately the role of the independent Financial Conduct Authority, not the Government, to set the regulatory framework for providers that will offer the lifetime ISA, including setting out any suitability tests that should apply. The FCA will consult on its regulatory framework shortly. It will ensure that providers are transparent to customers about the product, and that the products are sold with suitable safeguards in place.

I recognise the importance of individuals making an informed choice about whether Help to Save is right for them. Some may well be the same people who stand to benefit enormously from auto-enrolment. I have stated our commitment to that a number of times. We know that the Help to Save target audience may have less experience of financial products than the population on average. That is why we have already committed to work with interested parties to ensure that the right support and information are available, so that eligible people can decide whether the account is right for them. That will involve information and support from Government and the account provider, but we are also keen to explore a role for local organisations that are well placed to support the target population, such as local charities, advice bodies, social housing providers and the Churches, many of which have very good outreach and advice provision for people suffering from financial exclusion.

While we want to ensure that people have the information that they need, we must ensure that opening an account is as straightforward as possible. Requiring the account provider to give financial advice to every applicant makes the account application process more complex and time-consuming, and risks discouraging eligible people from opening an account. Countless studies show that the more hurdles there are to opening an account online, the more people are likely to fall away. Getting the balance right is really important.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I completely acknowledge that. The Minister referred to more hurdles being put in people’s way. Does she agree that many people out there wish some hurdles had been put in their way to prevent them from buying things that they did not want, instead of something that they would have preferred?

[Jane Ellison]

I totally accept that point. I suspect that some of us on the Committee would put ourselves in that category, casting their mind back over the years. The point is that the regulatory landscape today is very different from what it was; the hon. Member for Luton North made that point in one of our debates last week.

The Government are fully committed to providing advice. The Treasury sponsors the Money Advice Service, which has started to play a greater role in co-ordinating financial education programmes in schools. We have seen a lot more progress on that. We have the 10-year financial capability strategy, led by the Money Advice Service and supported by industry, which aims to improve financial capability across the nation. We see many different bodies going into schools and working with young people. There is always more to do, but I genuinely think that we are looking at a very different landscape from that of some decades ago. While we would never be complacent, that is why we want to take all the measures that I have mentioned to provide advice and information.

We have to find a balance in ensuring that people can access accounts that could greatly benefit them and their family. It is worth reiterating that with Help to Save, people’s money is not locked away. If individuals change their mind or decide the scheme is not for them, they are free to close their account and withdraw their savings, free of charge. I want to end with that reminder. We have designed the product with maximum flexibility in mind for a group of people whose current financial exclusion we should be ashamed of as a nation. We want to do something about that.

Savings (Government Contributions) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Jane Ellison and Peter Dowd

Thursday 27th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)]

I echo the comments that have been made about credit unions. I am sure that many of us, on both sides of the Committee, have credit unions in our local area. There is an excellent one in Wandsworth, which I do what I can to support with publicity and signposting for constituents. I certainly place on the record our admiration for the credit union movement. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bootle, said, there will be a meeting. His colleague the hon. Member for Harrow West made a very good speech on Second Reading, and I am glad that that meeting will take place.

This debate is about who provides the Help to Save product. We were clear in our consultation that the options for delivery were to engage a single provider to guarantee nationwide provision, or to open the opportunity to offer the account to a wider range of providers on a voluntary basis. Although we are keen to explore the potential for credit unions to be involved and we of course acknowledge, as I have done, the valuable work that they do in our communities, we believe that they could not guarantee the nationwide provision of accounts that we seek.

Appointing National Savings and Investments as the scheme provider, which we have obviously made public, does involve our funding it for nationwide account provision, but it also means that we can work with a single provider to ensure that accounts are easily accessible to all eligible people, and it removes what could be the significant administrative and compliance costs associated with allowing a range of providers to offer accounts. Those could include costs associated with approving providers, checking for multiple account opening, checking and paying bonus claims from different providers and ensuring that each provider is operating the account correctly.

An option whereby we funded NS&I to provide accounts while we also allowed other providers to offer accounts on a voluntary basis would not provide value for money in this environment. A product such as this operates very much at the value-for-money end of the market. However, I am clear that we should not rule out the option for a range of providers, including credit unions, voluntarily to offer accounts in the future if that would deliver national coverage, and I reassure the Committee that the Bill has been drafted to accommodate different models of account provision, should that situation arise. In the meantime, we will work with the credit union sector to explore further options for Help to Save that work for it.

The hon. Member for Bootle has indicated that he will not seek to press the amendment to a vote, and with those points and that clarification in mind, I urge him to withdraw it.

[Peter Dowd]

I thank the Minister for those words. I think it would be inappropriate to take up the Committee’s time pursuing the amendment any further at this stage, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison]

The amendments are about the scheme rules on monthly deposit limits. They would provide that rather than the maximum monthly deposit being set at £50, a saver could add an average of £50 per month to their account, calculated over a two-month period. That would allow individuals to make additional catch-up payments to their Help to Save accounts in the event that they did not use their full £50 deposit allowance in a preceding month.

We consulted on whether individuals should be able to pay in excess of the £50 monthly deposit limit to catch up on either unused monthly allowances or withdrawals. Respondents were clear that that would add complexity to the scheme for savers and account providers, and given the objectives of the scheme and our desire for the product to be straightforward and simple, it was vital that the account rules were kept as simple as possible to ensure that the scheme was easy to understand and accessible to the target group. Having an average monthly deposit limit would complicate the simple position that we propose in relation to account limits.

I entirely understand the spirit in which the amendments were tabled, but we consulted on this issue and the feedback that we received was that that was not the most straightforward way to proceed for the target group. It may also help the Committee to know that the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that on average people will deposit £27.50 into their accounts each month. That suggests that a £50 monthly limit is adequate. We have actually raised that limit from the £25 limit that was proposed for the Saving Gateway scheme—a scheme that, as some Members will know, contained elements similar to Help to Save. Quite a lot was learned from it, because it was piloted.

[Peter Dowd]

The Committee heard evidence from Joseph Surtees of StepChange that

“When it was introduced in the Budget, the potential eligibility for the scheme was 3.5 million, but the impact assessment says that it will probably only reach about 500,000”

and asked

“how do we get…to the 3.5 million figure?”––[Official Report, Savings (Government Contributions) Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2016; c. 28, Q49.]

Does the Minister agree that, if we are to get a higher level of engagement, the scheme may need to be more flexible, as suggested by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber?

[Jane Ellison]

It is certainly fair to say that we want to look at all aspects of how we grow the scheme and reach as many eligible people as possible. At this stage, we disagree about offsetting greater flexibility against perhaps great simplicity, and how we balance the two. Because of the way we have structured the Bill and its consequent regulations, there is quite a lot of flexibility built into the scheme in the future. We have the £50 monthly limit in the schedule, but there are ways that we might be able to return to the product and look at it in the future. I come down on the side of simplicity in this argument, and that is why we have proposed what we have—notwithstanding the evidence we heard on Tuesday.

The Saving Gateway, which was essentially the partial forerunner of this scheme, had a proposed limit of only £25. Given the OBR’s forecast that £27.50 will be the average deposit, doubling the limit from Saving Gateway effectively allows for people to make almost twice that average deposit. In effect, the upper limit offers the flexibility that the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber proposes. It is also worth noting that the four-year duration of an account will allow savers to dip in and out of saving when they can afford to put money aside. Savers will still earn an attractive Government bonus even if they are not in a position to save the full amount each month. With those points in mind, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Savings (Government Contributions) Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Jane Ellison and Peter Dowd

Thursday 27th October 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Jane Ellison]

I think we would all agree on the broad point about wanting people to have access to financial advice whatever their income, but we are dealing with this Bill. The Government will consult and take soundings on the successor to the Money Advice Service and the other advice services that will be brought together, and I am sure that we will have a good debate about that in due course. The hon. Gentleman may wish to contribute those broader thoughts to that debate.

Let me turn to the current regulatory framework around the LISA. It is worth saying that it is not the Government’s role to set that regulatory framework. The hon. Member for Luton North talked about the different regulatory landscape at the time when he was being sold products—not particularly well, apparently. We are all thankful that that landscape has changed greatly since those days, and rightly so, but it is the role of the independent Financial Conduct Authority to regulate the providers of ISAs, and it will likewise set the appropriate framework for the lifetime ISA.

The FCA will consult on the regulatory regime for the lifetime ISA throughout the autumn and will, as is its ordinary remit, ensure that providers are transparent to customers about the products that they are offering and those products are sold with suitable safeguards in place. We heard in some of the evidence sessions on Tuesday about how the industry wants to get advice right. Everyone has been scarred by what has happened in years past. As I said to the hon. Gentleman, we will consult later this year on the scope of the new financial guidance body, as a complement to the industry’s advice. We heard people such as Martin Lewis talk about the common-sense advice that people need to hear, and that is also an important part of the landscape from which people can seek guidance. I am sure that Martin Lewis and others will contribute to the debate about the new advice services.

I reassure the hon. Member for Bootle that information about the lifetime ISA will be available so that potential customers can make informed choices about which financial products to use. We want people to understand what the right choices are for them, but it would not be appropriate for the Government to require advice to be provided, as that would create a significant financial barrier to individuals accessing the lifetime ISA. It is the independent FCA’s role, not the Government’s, to set the regulatory framework for ISAs. For those reasons—not because I disagree with the spirit of his new clause but because I do not think it would work in practice—I encourage him to withdraw new clause 2.

I conclude my remarks about clause 1 by saying that the lifetime ISA will benefit many young people by supporting them to save flexibly for the long term. It is designed to complement the pension system, not replace it. The clause makes provision for the fundamental feature of the lifetime ISA: the Government bonus. We think that is a positive product for young people, and we do not want them to lose out on, for example, a year’s worth of saving and the compound interest on that because of the delay that has been called for. I therefore ask Committee members to support clause 1.

[Peter Dowd]

I welcome some of the Minister’s comments on both new clauses, and the spirit in which she made them. In the spirit of trying to move on, we will not push new clause 1 to a Division. We acknowledge that the Minister has said that there will be reviews of some fashion, though maybe not statutory reviews; we will take that away and consider it, and may come back to the question of reviews. Our concerns in relation to auto-enrolment can be appreciated. It has been a good product, to use the jargon, and we do not want to lose that. However, again, in the spirit of moving on, we will pull away from the new clause.

We will push new clause 2, on independent financial advice, to a vote, because this House has to lay down a marker when it comes to people’s future and making a significant investment in a product. The lifetime ISA is a significant investment, whatever way we look it. Importantly, it is also a significant investment by taxpayers; that has to be taken into account. If somebody wants a lifetime ISA, and rightly understands that the Government will put a lump sum towards it, it is not unreasonable for us to say that we expect that person to take independent financial advice.

[Peter Dowd]

It is, and that is why I am trying to push that message home. To some extent, we need to draw a line in the sand.

[Jane Ellison]

Given that some of the debate on new clause 2 has been about the concern that the product would be insufficiently attractive to people on lower pay, the practical nature—not the spirit—of what the hon. Gentleman proposes would essentially be regressive, and make the product less attractive to those on lower incomes, whom we wish to attract.

[Peter Dowd]

I completely understand that. The Bill is full of principles: we want people to save and to have pensions, to have the Government cough up towards that, and the individual to put money in personally. There is a whole series of things that we say must be part of the process in principle. For us, there is also the principle at stake of seeking independent financial advice. That is not unreasonable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

To start with, I telegraph the fact that we will not pursue this matter. However, it is important to get on the record the fact that where Government policy has an effect on house prices, it is important—given the current state of the housing market, which is overheating due to lack of supply—to have that logged and noted, however marginal the effect appears to be. I am not suggesting that the Minister has brushed that point aside, but it is our responsibility to bring that effect to account.

The Minister quoted some figures on seeking advice for particular products, but 0.3% inflation on housing is a fair old amount of money. If that is 100,000 transactions a year of around £750, that is the best part of £70 million-odd a year added to house prices by this policy alone. If we are to introduce policies that add to an already overheating sector, it is important that as a nation, a Government and a Parliament, we take into account their impact. That additional £750 for that person is £750 not going somewhere else in their budget. I only say that to try to get that issue into the smorgasbord of issues that we have to take into account. I will not be pursuing the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 1 accordingly agreed to.

Clause 2

Government contributions to Help-to-Save accounts

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

[Jane Ellison]

The Prime Minister has set out the Government’s mission to build a country that truly works for everyone, not just the privileged few. Clause 2 introduces the Help to Save product, and we can be extremely encouraged that it speaks directly to that mission. Evidence from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation cited in the House of Commons Library briefing paper shows that between a quarter and a third of households have said that they are unable to make regular savings for rainy days. According to the family resources survey, a household with less than £25,000 in income is twice as likely to have no savings as a family with more than £50,000. We heard from the debt charity StepChange in its written submissions—this point was amplified in its contribution to the evidence session—that access to a £1,000 savings pot can reduce the likelihood of the average family falling into debt by almost half.

Faced with that evidence—and the evidence we all know from our constituency surgeries of people living fragile financial lives, where one thing going wrong can tip them into debt or other problems—it is only right that we provide a strong incentive and reward for working households on lower incomes to build a savings buffer.

Help to Save will support up to 3.5 million people on lower incomes who are just about managing but may be struggling to build up their savings. It will help them develop their financial resilience and ability to cope with unexpected financial pressures. Clause 2 sets out the main characteristic of Help to Save: the Government bonus or contribution, which will be paid by the paying authority. The bonus will be paid at 50% of the highest balance achieved in the account. Over the four-year maturity period of the account, an eligible individual can save up to £2,400 and earn a Government bonus of up to £1,200. We intend that HMRC will pay any bonus amounts due and that that will be passed to eligible individuals by the account provider. Schedule 2, which we will consider shortly, makes further provision in relation to Help to Save accounts and the Government bonus.

Help to Save will meet a real need and will support many of those who are just getting by, helping them to build their financial resilience and supporting their ability to cope with financial shocks.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2

Help-to-Save accounts: further provision

Swine Flu Vaccination: Compensation

Debate between Jane Ellison and Peter Dowd

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Peter Dowd]

GlaxoSmithKline was indemnified because there was an issue of risk—that is the whole point. Why are the Government not as quick to effectively indemnify the victims of this vaccine?

[Jane Ellison]

Perhaps it would be easier if I wrote to the hon. Gentleman after the debate to clarify that point.

As I have said, it appears from the timing that the constituent of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby received the vaccine during the 2010-11 flu season. The 1979 Act did not cover seasonal flu vaccination at that time as it was not part of the routine childhood immunisation programme. Influenza was added to the Act as a specified disease in February 2015, but the order stipulated that the vaccination against influenza must have been administered after 1 September 2013, when flu vaccination became part of the routine childhood immunisation programme. Unfortunately, that will not assist the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. I am afraid that it is not possible to accept a claim outside the conditions laid down in the Act. I recognise that that aspect of the scheme has produced an unfortunate result in this case, but we must work within the confines of the law. The Act has been in place for many years on the basis of disease rather than vaccine, and the Government currently have no plans to change how the scheme is run.

Of course, I have sympathy for the case that the hon. Gentleman has made on behalf of his constituent, and I recognise the frustration and disappointment that his constituent and his family will feel at my response. This is a complex topic, with no quick or easy answers, as successive Governments have found. I stress, though, that the VDPS is only one part of the wide range of support and help available to severely disabled people in the UK. Other examples include the disability living allowance, which provides an important non-contributory, non-means-tested and tax-free cash contribution towards the disability-related extra costs for severely disabled children. I encourage the hon. Gentleman’s constituents to consider what other entitlements might be available. I know that the hon. Gentleman will continue to offer Lucas and his family every support in that regard.

Question put and agreed to.