Health and Social Care Levy Bill

John Baron Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 14th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)]

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

Last week the Prime Minister announced a plan to tackle the NHS backlog, put the adult social care system on a sustainable long-term footing, and end the situation in which those who need help in their old age risk losing everything to pay for it. The Government’s plan will make an extraordinary difference to the lives of millions of people across the country, and it will be funded with a record £36 billion investment in the NHS and social care. In order to pay for a significant increase in spending in a responsible and fair way, the Bill introduces a new 1.25% health and social care levy based on national insurance contributions.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

We need to give credit where it is due, and the Government are absolutely right to try to grasp this nettle, but many of us are concerned about the haste with which it is being done. Does my right hon. Friend think it is a good idea to raise taxes on jobs ineffectively, and risk choking off an economic recovery before we have even got to know the details of the social care reforms?

[Steve Barclay]

My hon. Friend, and good friend, has raised two connected points. The first was dealt with earlier in points of order: it is the will of the House that decides the timings of debates, and the Chair addressed that point. As for the second, we discussed it at length during last week’s ways and means debate. We discussed the wider purpose in dealing with the consequences of covid and the backlog in care that needs to be tackled, but we also discussed grasping the nettle in relation to the long-term challenges surrounding social care—challenges that the House has debated repeatedly over many years.

The levy will apply UK-wide to taxpayers liable for class 1 employee and employer, class 1A, class 1B and class 4 self-employed national insurance contributions. However, it will not apply where taxpayers pay class 2 or class 3 NICs. It will be introduced in April 2022, and from April 2023 it will also apply to those working over the state pension age. As my right hon. and hon. Friends will understand, it takes time for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to prepare its systems for such a major shift. That is why, as set out in clause 5, in 2022-23 the levy will be delivered through a temporary increase in NICs rates of 1.25% for one year only.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I join many Members who have already spoken in wholeheartedly supporting the Government in trying to grasp this nettle, which has been pushed into the long grass for too long by too many Governments of all persuasions. However, I think many of us are concerned about the haste with which this reform—or this funding, certainly—is being introduced. Parliament has little time to scrutinise the details properly, and there are so few details out there. Questions to the Prime Minister only last week, in a letter copied in to the Chancellor and indeed to the Secretary of State for Health, have been left unanswered.

I would ask those on the Front Bench what other types of funding for social care systems have been considered. Have they looked at the insurance-based systems on the continent? Why not a public insurance system, which has many merits? We are unclear about the exact improvements to social care, yet today we are signing off a massive tax increase—bigger than that raised by some Budgets.

I would also suggest that this is the wrong approach to the funding. The Conservative party has traditionally referred to national insurance as a tax on jobs. The Prime Minister, when opposing Labour’s increase from the Back Benches in 2002, called it regressive. He was right then, and I am afraid that he is wrong now in introducing this national insurance contribution tax increase.

The core of my one nation Conservatism is a belief that, in order better to help the more vulnerable and ensure that we maintain low unemployment, we should encourage economic prosperity. Low taxes help businesses, encourage prosperity and keep unemployment down—they certainly help to. Yet here we are, increasing taxes at a time when the recovery is still fragile after the pandemic. This will cost jobs, and it will result in lower pay and higher prices. I also to a certain extent question the fairness of this increase in our national insurance contributions, which will disproportionately fall on the lower paid. Why should wealthy non-working pensioners be exempt? If this were a truly broad-based tax, we would be answering that question, but there is nothing but silence from the Government on that point.

I am concerned about the lack of response from the NHS with all this extra funding going in and the lack of accountability. I was chair of the all-party group on cancer for 10 years. We continue to point out that we are failing to match international averages when it comes to our cancer survival rates. We have a mass of process targets that create myriad bureaucracies, but we are still not catching up when it comes to average cancer survival rates. Only half the NHS workforce is medically trained. We need to address that, because more money alone is not the answer. We need genuine reform that focuses on outcome measures, not process targets. So we need more time to consider the proposals and I will not be supporting the Government in the Lobbies tonight.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Baron Excerpts

Tuesday 9th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

In mentioning Bolton, the hon. Lady somehow neglected to mention the £22.9 million-worth of towns funding that Bolton has recently received. I thought that she might kick off with that. The answer that I gave was perfectly clear about the matter: we are bending over backwards to support people. We have leant into this issue as hard as we can and we will continue to do so.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on plans to increase the national living wage.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)]

As the Chancellor reaffirmed at the Budget, the Government are increasing the national living wage by 2.2% from £8.72 to £8.91, an above-inflation pay rise. The Government remain committed to their ambitious target for the national living wage to reach two thirds of median earnings by 2024 provided that economic conditions allow. The Treasury will continue to work closely with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that we reach this target.

[Mr Baron [V]]

In welcoming the Government’s generous economic support packages and the increase in the national living wage, may I just ask the Minister to consider further increasing it ahead of inflation in the years ahead to help achieve our one nation agenda and ensure that work pays? I suggest that, combined with an effective and controlled immigration policy, that will also encourage businesses to invest in their workforce and in research and development generally, which will help to improve productivity.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He should know that the Government remain committed to ensuring that work pays and to helping to end low pay. As he knows, investment to raise productivity is vital for long-term sustainable growth in wages. I am sure that his request is one that we will consider, as always, in future Budgets. Taxes and minimum wages are always under review, but this Government are absolutely focused on levelling up. We have set out our plan to build back better, which will drive economic growth that levels up the whole of the UK through significant investment in infrastructure as well as skills and innovation.

Financial Services Bill

John Baron Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will certainly do the best I can within the constraints of the technology that we have. I wish everybody a guid new year.

As colleagues will see, the SNP has tabled a range of amendments to this wide-ranging portfolio Bill. We have done so because we feel very strongly that the Bill was an opportunity to strengthen consumer protection; to take on the long-running and vexed issue of mortgage prisoners; to look at the wider responsibilities of financial services firms in areas of climate change, the sustainable development goals, ethics, money laundering and criminality; and to try our very best to mitigate the unfolding disaster that is Brexit.

On the first day of trading after the transition period ended, the City of London lost €6 billion in euro-denominated trading to venues in Amsterdam and Paris by companies such as London Stock Exchange Group, CBOE, and Aquis Exchange. Ernst & Young has said that £1.2 trillion of assets and 7,500 jobs had moved from the UK to the EU before 31 December. Trade frictions are apt to make this situation worse. Only last week, the Prime Minister was asking businesses what further divergence they would like to see. On the contrary, the message that we get when talking to City figures is that the only folk pushing for deregulation are Tory Back Benchers. Businesses see the importance of having open access to the EU market. It is vital that the UK authorities take into account the impact of frictions before taking us further away from the rules that the rest of Europe abides by.

SNP amendment 8 would ensure that the likely effects of the rules on trade frictions between the UK and EU are considered before part 9C rules are taken. Amendment 11 does the same for CRR—capital requirements regulation—rules. Our new clause 20 would force the Tories to come clean on the impact of financial services divergence from the EU. We feel very strongly that it is possible that if Scotland had been permitted to negotiate its own EU deal, taking into account our priorities, financial services operations could well have moved to Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen. It would certainly be better than how things are operating currently, with added layers of complexity. I have heard that a trader in London now cannot speak to an EU-based client without an EU-based trader also on the call to chaperone. The UK Government face a choice of two options: to try to achieve equivalence with the EU, which will essentially leave them a rule-taker with no seat at the decision-making table, or to forget about equivalence altogether and tear up the rulebook. It is expected that this latter option will encourage EU efforts to strip financial services businesses from the UK, losing well-paid jobs and skills not just in London but in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and other places too. We certainly did not vote for such an outcome.

Moving on to money laundering and financial crime, successive UK Governments have failed to tackle money laundering. The Minister gave this a hefty further kick into the long grass of a further call for evidence in his response to the amendments proposed by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) also reiterated the need for action. Our new clause 14 would force Westminster to come clean on tax avoidance and the misuse of Scottish limited partnerships, about which the Minister knows I care a great deal. New clause 14 would show how little impact this Bill has on tax avoidance. With the Chancellor talking of a return to austerity, tax rises and public pay constraint, it is galling that there is no urgency by the UK Government in tackling tax avoidance and evasion on the other side of that balance sheet. It beggars belief, still, that the Tories’ 2018 Bill left an oligarch loophole allowing money laundering by overseas trusts to buy UK property with impunity—and they still have not acted on SLPs.

Clause 31 amends schedule 2 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 to ensure that regulations can be made in respect of trustees with links to the UK. Without this, any powers that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs sought to exercise to access information on such trusts are at risk of being held invalid under legal challenge. The UK Government must introduce a robust and transparent system of company registration in order to combat money launderers’ attempts to register entities for illicit purposes. The UK Government must also act to tackle the ongoing improper use of SLPs via proper, thorough reform of Companies House.

The UK Government really ought to accept cross-party amendment 7 to tackle financial crime and genocide, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), my relentless colleague on the Treasury Committee. Failure to take action on this important human rights agenda will never be forgotten. This UK Government are forever keen to talk up their global Britain credentials, so this amendment is a significant opportunity to take that lead. It builds on the UK Government’s adoption of Magnitsky sanctions. I implore the Minister: we should never allow those who have had a hand in genocide to make their investments in the UK.

We also strongly support cross-party new clause 4, which would make it an offence for a relevant body registered by the FCA to facilitate, or fail to prevent, specified economic crimes. That is an area in desperate need of tightening, because too many are getting away with that at the moment.

I have previously given the Minister a wee bit of slagging for the Bill, and I made a pretty safe prediction that our diligent amendments would be dismissed in Committee. The Government’s U-turn on electronic payment legislation, which they dismissed in Committee, shows why our financial safety depends on parliamentary scrutiny, and the introduction of such a measure at this late stage gives me some concern. In Committee, the Government dismissed the need to cover electronic money institutions and the difficulties around DAMLs—defences against money laundering—despite the urgency of that issue, yet today we have a slew of Government amendments, new clauses, and even a whole new schedule.

Electronic money institutions expected to see something in the Bill. The Opposition tabled amendments to correct that. The Minister said that he would update Members on Report, but it is late in the day to bring such comprehensive amendments to the House. I would be grateful for clarity on whether Government amendments missed the boat in the first draft, or whether there is another reason. I am concerned that we have not been given the evidence to ascertain whether the drafting and content of the amendments provides what electronic money institutions are looking for. It would have been good to have such information, so that we could have taken evidence on it at the start of this process. 

This issue goes to the heart of many of the concerns felt by me and my colleagues. Legislation is not done well here at the best of times, and financial services is a huge area that requires legislation, oversight and expertise. The Government say they are taking back control, but they are taking it from Brussels and giving it straight to unseen bureaucrats and regulators, with little role for this House. At the very least, MPs must be afforded the same level of power and influence that MEPs enjoyed. We know that little time and priority is given to SI Committees, and that Committees such as the European Scrutiny Committee have no real impact on regulation. Select Committee business is already incredibly busy, and scrutiny of these new powers must not be squeezed into already limited time and space, especially given the work that the Treasury and BEIS Committees now have, due to the covid fallout and the economic recovery.

With this place not having even a budget committee, SNP Members find it doubtful that the Treasury’s new powers will receive the scrutiny they deserve. That is why we want a specific committee to deal with the swathes of powers that are being handed back to the Treasury, the FCA and the PRA. We must ensure that the use of those powers is subject to the affirmative scrutiny procedure, and new clauses 15 and 16 seek to address that issue. Until the regulatory framework review has been published, and a new oversight structure agreed, such clauses are vital to ensure that Government and the FCA consult Parliament, before using the powers in the Bill in a way that would make Henry VIII blush.

On areas of consumer interest, I fully support new clause 7, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). Her speech in Committee was well-informed and passionate, and I suspect the Minister knows as well as the rest of us that she was correct to raise those concerns. There must be consumer protection for those using buy-now, pay-later schemes of all types. Clearpay and Klarna are on just about every retail website these days, and the lack of regulation around them exposes all our constituents to significant risk. Covid has led to approaching 1 million job losses, with implications for those who have outstanding debts. That toxic situation will only cause hardship in the long run, and the UK Government would do well to listen to the hon. Member for Walthamstow and act today, rather than wait for trouble to be heaped on our constituents in future.

I was glad to see the Minister make moves towards Help to Save accounts which I raised in Committee. I still have serious concerns that people who have managed to save some cash might lose access to it, although his assurances go some way to addressing those fears. It makes a degree of sense to transfer money into the same account that Help to Save bonuses were paid into, but the proportion of accounts where that is not possible must be closely monitored. I would like to know more about how National Savings and Investments will contact those who have poor literacy and may be disengaged, and I assure the Minister that I will be keeping a close eye on that. Saying that customers will be contacted could mean they get a letter in the post that they do not open and it goes into a pile with the rest of the unopened mail—we all have constituents who do that, and they have a right for their savings to be protected, along with those of everybody else.

I intend to press SNP new clause 21 on the financial services duty of care to a vote this afternoon.  Macmillan Cancer Support was incredibly helpful in drafting the new clause, and I pay tribute to all those who are struggling not just through covid, but though cancer treatment as well. Under new clause 21, the FCA must ensure that financial services providers act with a duty of care and in the best interests of all consumers. It would amend the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 by inserting a “duty of care specification” and bringing that into the FCA’s general duties. There would be an explicit requirement on the FCA to secure an appropriate degree of protection for consumers, and to ensure that authorised persons carrying out regulated activities act with that duty of care.

Who would not want to see this? Macmillan has been clear that at present things are quite piecemeal and the current system is just not working for consumers. It has proposed this change for several reasons, not least because its research suggests that only 11% of people tell their bank about a cancer diagnosis. Macmillan suggests that it would be much better if the banks assumed that people may be vulnerable, rather than waiting for people to get into difficulties while going through cancer treatment, which will only add to their stress. One in three people with cancer experience a loss of income from employment following a diagnosis, losing an average of around £860 a month. That makes it more difficult for them to pay their bills, or to meet any other debts and obligations, which is why this proposal is so important and relevant.

Our new clauses 24, 25 and 26 would ensure that no more homeowners have their mortgages sold to vulture funds. As I said at the beginning, the Bill gives the UK Government an opportunity to deal with this long-standing injustice, and I urge them to give it further consideration. Some have argued that those who ended up as mortgage prisoners were somehow just bad borrowers who got into trouble when they lived beyond their means, but more often than not that is actually very far from the reality. As the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton pointed out, an expert analyst enlisted by the all-party parliamentary group on mortgage prisoners, has concluded that it is not the case, and it is not how markets and ratings agencies see the situation either.

The APPG’s analysis of the mortgage books has established that at the point of origination, Northern Rock loans were all prime mortgages with lower than average default rates, exhibiting good borrower behaviour; that if we adjusted for standard variable rate overpayments coming in line with other high street lenders, not only would these borrowers potentially be up to date with the payments, but their loan balances would also be around 10% lower; and that if we adjusted to competitive rates on the market, the difference would be even more substantial. The bond markets paid over the market value for the books, indicating that anyone in those books is, in fact, paying over the market value for the standard variable rates. People have been stuck in these mortgages for nine years and it is high time for the UK Government to act. I appreciate what the Minister says about other actions, but for those listening there is very little to justify further delay in doing the right thing, on top of the delays that they have already faced.

We will rely on SMEs for our economic recovery, and our new clause 11 would ensure that they are treated fairly by the big banks to avoid the mistakes of last crisis. Many conversations at the Treasury Committee have reflected that the banks and regulators do not want to repeat scandals such as RBS GRG, but we feel very strongly that we must take the opportunity of this Bill to go further. The Federation of Small Businesses has issued a stark warning that around a quarter of a million small businesses could be forced to close this year due to a lack of Government support. In a survey of 1,400 small firms, 5% stated that they expected to pull down the shutters this year. If replicated across the UK, these figures would mean 250,000 firms closing down if the Tory Government continue to sit on their hands.

The owners of these SMEs are often very heavily personally exposed if their business fails. Their family homes are at risk, just as if they were mis-sold a mortgage. The FCA has already recognised in its 2015 discussion paper, “Our approach to SMEs as users of financial services” that they are often no more financially sophisticated than everyday consumers, but are at risk of mis-selling because of product complexity, limited choice and poorly managed expectations. I could say an awful lot more about this, but I appreciate the time constraints. I would just point out that, as things stand, a sole trader with a property empire of £30 million can sue for breaches of the rules, whereas an ice cream van owner whose accountant tells him to incorporate for tax reasons cannot. It is a very illogical distinction between individuals who can take action and companies that cannot. I very much urge the Minister to look at that.

This Bill was an opportunity to do an awful lot more in a number of areas. As I and the Labour Front Benchers have set out, there is still much more that should be done to secure a future for financial services—a future that has been entirely undermined by Brexit, which will make things significantly more difficult. Huge questions on equivalence remain unanswered, and there is still no certainty of an agreement on a regulatory equivalence deal between the UK and the EU. For financial services, this deal is effectively a no-deal Brexit, which neither Scotland nor the City of London voted for. UK firms and their employees can no longer freely operate in the EU, and this has been a source of shockwaves across the sector. Worse still, there is no timescale for any kind of agreement.

Many companies are choosing to move their operations to the EU, rather than hang around for an indefinite period of time for an equivalence deal. The UK Government have given very little consideration to financial services in the negotiations, and there are far-reaching implications—far beyond those who work in the sector, but to each and every one of our constituents who needs that certainty and who needs interactions with financial services to be done properly for their own protection.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) [V]]

I refer to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also wish briefly to thank the Leader of the House for eventually listening to sense and allowing virtual participation in debates of this sort; it has been a positive development.

Future Relationship with the EU

John Baron Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

These are serious issues and, partly because of the stresses that global trade is under with regard to the pandemic, there are other issues—for example, containers being at the wrong end of the globe to enable particular trade to continue—to contend with in addition to the ones the hon. Lady mentions. For each of these issues, the relevant Department has a mitigation plan that it is carrying out. I understand that this situation is very difficult for business, but we are here to provide both the practical and the financial support, as we have done through the investments we have made in infrastructure, technology and people. Where specific issues affect particular sectors, the relevant Departments are doing all that they can to rectify those situations.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) [V]]

I know that my right hon. Friend agrees that it is good that the negotiations continue—we all want a good trade deal—but will she convey to the Prime Minister that if the EU refuses to recognise or accept British sovereignty, which was at the very heart of the 2016 vote, and there is no deal, he has the party’s full support? After all, both the UK and the EU trade very profitably with much of the world, including the United States, China, India and Australia, on no-deal terms.

[Penny Mordaunt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he says and I thank him for that demonstration of support for the Prime Minister and the position of the negotiating team. I think it will help, in the coming days, for them to have heard that.

Spending Review 2020 and OBR Forecast

John Baron Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

The hon. Gentleman talked about those on the lowest pay. We accepted the recommendations from the Low Pay Commission to increase the national living wage by 2.2%. That will make a difference of £345 to full-time national living wage workers, as well as protecting those in the public sector who earn up to the average UK salary of £24,000, who will receive a £250 uplift.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) [V]]

I commend the Chancellor on many of these measures, including the support for the lower-paid. When it comes to funding, I encourage him not to stifle enterprise through increases in taxes, as these are often counter- productive. May I raise with him the case of social care workers? They provide an essential service but they are often overlooked, in part because they span the private and public sectors. What more can he do for them? For example, further to my letter to him, will he consider raising their personal tax threshold so that they can take home more of their pay?

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is right about the importance of social care workers. He will know that they are not formally part of public sector pay settlements, but many of them are national living wage workers, as he knows, so they will benefit from the increase of 2.2% that we are putting in place for next year. He will also know that we have already made a start in the Budget on our desire to raise the national insurance threshold, delivering cash benefits to people of about £100 this year, but it is something that we will keep under review for future fiscal events.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Baron Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) [V]]

[Rishi Sunak]

Oral Answers to Questions

John Baron Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

As we are putting in place the detailed guidance for the scheme, we are actively considering the question of how best to average the earnings of people in this situation. I very much take on board the suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman has made, and I know that my team are engaging with those unions as we speak to try to get the details right.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

T3. I commend the Chancellor and his team for the robust policy response that we have seen to this crisis so far, but may I ask them to continue to focus laser-like on the issue of cash flow, which is particularly important to smaller businesses, particularly important to the workforce, and particularly important to the vulnerable groups in society? That issue of cash flow is probably the most important when it comes to determining employment, which is important to everyone in this Chamber and to the country at large.

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of cash flow, which is why we have targeted our interventions specifically at smaller businesses by providing extra cash flow support. We have done so through the £10,000 grant to every business in receipt of small business rate or rural rate relief and, indeed, through the deferral of VAT, which starts from today for the quarter. As my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said earlier, that represents more than £35 billion, or 1.5% of GDP-worth of tax deferral, providing immediate cash-flow support. We have done the same thing for self-assessment payments that are due in the coming months and have also, as of yesterday, launched a business interruption loan scheme, which my hon. Friend has done fantastic work developing. It will provide 12-month interest-free loans to small businesses, again, to help provide them with the liquidity that they need to get through this.

Economic Update

John Baron Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

The package of measures today does specifically provide cash support to those in that sector to help with things like rent, but I make no apology for our being led by the public health response. This is first and foremost a public health emergency, and we will be led by responding to that. Of course, the economy is foremost in our minds, and I will always respond quickly and rapidly to any changes in the public health advice.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I commend the Chancellor for this package of measures as far as they go, and we understand that it is a moving narrative, but I particularly urge him to focus on the importance of cash flow when it comes to smaller businesses and the self-employed. However, can I raise with him a group of people who so far have not been mentioned, which is the elderly and the vulnerable who live alone? There is a real risk in a situation such as this that they get inadvertently overlooked, and we need to reach out to them. Would the Chancellor consider providing appropriate support for local authorities to do just that—to identify them, locate them and make contact, because no one should be left behind?

[Rishi Sunak]

I can tell my hon. Friend that he is absolutely right, and the Communities and Local Government Secretary has already been engaging on this particular issue, working together with the Health Secretary with regard to social care, to make sure that, in our local communities, we can identify and protect the elderly and most vulnerable, and make sure that they get the support that they need.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Baron Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that there were other signs that indicated to people that they were in tax avoidance schemes—for example, a very low or relatively low effective rate of tax. The signs were there and people would have been right to pick up on them. Even if they were mis-sold, that does not have a bearing on the question of whether tax is now due.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

7. What steps his Department is taking to tackle stakeholders’ concerns on the roll-out of the off-payroll working rules to the private sector.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)]

In response to stakeholder representations at Budget 2018, the Government announced that the extension of the off-payroll working rules reform would not take effect until April 2020. That was designed to allow organisations more time to prepare. The reform will also not apply to the smallest 1.5 million organisations. The Government have now consulted on the detailed design of the reform. Responses to that consultation will be taken into account when drafting the legislation.

[Mr Baron]

Nevertheless, there are concerns within the private sector about the forthcoming adoption of IR35. What lessons are there from its application to the public sector?

[Jesse Norman]

That is a very important question. I hope my hon. Friend will be reassured. Independent research shows that the public sector reform has been meeting its objective of improving compliance with existing off-payroll working rules without disrupting public services or reducing labour market flexibility. The Government recognise that the private sector is much more diverse, but HMRC will continue to work with stakeholders to improve employment status checks and associated guidance. It will also provide a significant package of education and support to businesses to help with implementation.

Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Israel) Order 2019 Draft Double Taxation Relief (Cyprus) Order 2019

John Baron Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2019 General Committees

[Jesse Norman]

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

The draft orders, as colleagues will be aware, are narrow and technical pieces of legislation. They give effect to amendments to the 2018 double taxation agreements, or DTAs, with Cyprus and Israel. Double taxation agreements remove barriers to international trade and investment, and provide what are widely regarded as a clear and fair framework for taxing businesses that trade across borders. By doing so, they benefit both business and the wider economies of the countries that sign them. I will say a few words about each agreement.

The amending protocol that we agreed with Cyprus implements a transition period for changes made to the taxation of Government service pensions in the 2018 double taxation agreement. Under the previous agreement with Cyprus, such pensions paid by the UK to residents of Cyprus were taxable only in Cyprus. The 2018 DTA gave the UK sole taxing rights if the pension is paid to a UK national who is resident in Cyprus.

The treatment in the 2018 DTA is in accordance with international standards, but concerns were expressed in Committee and by members of the public that the changes would lead to hardship for pensioners due to the increased rates of tax that they would pay on their income. I am grateful to colleagues who raised this in the House. Having listened to the arguments, my predecessor asked officials of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to review the position with Cyprus. The protocol before us is the result of that review. As requested by those affected, the new provision will allow individuals to elect to continue to be taxed only in Cyprus for a period of up to five years, and so is designed to give them adequate time to plan for the change after that period elapses.

The current double taxation agreement with Israel dates from 1962, as amended by a protocol in 1970. Its age means that it is in need of updating to reflect changes to the OECD model tax convention and the domestic tax laws and treaty preferences of both states. We were therefore happy to accept Israel’s suggestion that the situation should be rectified. In line with the request of the hon. Member for Oxford East in an earlier Committee, the explanatory memorandum spells out in paragraph 7.8 and following where the amended DTA reflects the OECD model treaty.

The amended DTA also introduces a number of improvements for businesses, individuals and HMRC. It removes a provision that denied many UK residents access to reduced withholding tax on dividends paid by Israeli companies. In addition, the updated agreement reduces withholding tax on dividends in respect of direct investments from 10% to 5%. The rate of 15% applicable to portfolio investments remains unchanged, and that rate also applies to dividends paid by a real estate investment trust. The rate of withholding tax applicable to interest is reduced from 15% to 10% generally, with a 5% rate for interest paid to banks.

A drafting error at paragraph 7.6 of the explanatory memorandum erroneously states that interest paid to UK-resident companies will not be taxed in Israel. That will be corrected in the final explanatory memorandum published with this instrument, if approved.

The updated DTA also contains important exemptions for interest paid to pension schemes and relating to listed corporate debt. It provides the option for taxation of interest on a net basis in the territory from which it is paid. Withholding tax on royalties is reduced from 15% to 0%. That range of reductions in withholding tax is designed to encourage cross-border trade and investment between the two countries, to the benefit of both.

The new DTA also contains a number of modern anti-avoidance provisions that meet the minimum standard agreed under the OECD and G20 base erosion and profit shifting, or BEPS, project. The provisions include: an updated preamble that makes it clear the purpose of the DTA is not to create opportunities for tax evasion and avoidance; and a principle purpose test that denies treaty benefits in cases of abuse.

Other anti-avoidance rules in the new treaty that go beyond the BEPS minimum standard include a tiebreaker provision for determining corporate residence based on competent authority agreement. Another provision preserves UK taxing rights on gains from shares which derive their value principally from immovable property in the UK. Finally, the new DTA brings the exchange of information article into line with contemporary international standards and provides for mutual assistance in the collection of debts.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I fully endorse what the Minister has been saying about tax avoidance schemes. In future deliberations, I ask him to resist any temptation to increase tax on dividends. He will understand that, over the long term, the reinvestment of dividends over time has accounted for the vast majority of investment returns, which has benefited pension funds, charities and large swathes of society, particularly those in retirement.

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comment. He is right that dividends are an important stream of revenue. I hope he welcomes the changes made in this double taxation agreement.

As I have said, the provisions include an exchange of information article, which brings that information exchange into line with contemporary international standards and provides for mutual assistance in the collection of tax debts. Together, we believe these features will strengthen both countries’ defences against tax avoidance and evasion.

In summary, the orders implement important improvements to our DTAs with Cyprus and Israel. The Government have listened to the arguments presented by UK nationals living in Cyprus and agreed to delay the introduction of the change to the taxation of Government service pensions for up to five years. The agreement with Israel is one the UK and Israel can be happy with. It protects UK revenue and provides a stable framework in which trade and investment between the UK and Israel can continue to flourish. I commend the orders to the Committee.