Kirsty Blackman
Main Page: Kirsty Blackman (Scottish National Party - Aberdeen North)Department Debates - View all Kirsty Blackman's debates with the HM Treasury
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Kirsty Blackman ExcerptsTuesday 18th April 2017
(7 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Recent studies have shown that the youngest people in our society who are working, those aged 22 to 29, are earning less than previous 22 to 29-year-olds have ever earned, or certainly less than they have earned in recent times. They are also less likely to own a home and are more likely to rent, and they are disadvantaged by comparison with previous generations. What is the Minister doing to ensure that that stops and is reversed now?
Jane Ellison
I have just talked about some of the things we are doing. Some of these long-term trends need to be addressed through things such as investing in people’s skill levels. Ultimately, if we want to have a low welfare, high wage, high skill economy, we need to invest in people right from the earliest days. The package on skills in particular, which was unveiled recently, is intended to make the generational step change to ensure that people can get high skill, well paid jobs. That is exactly what we are talking about in relation to things such as affordable housing: we acknowledge that there are challenges for younger people and, indeed, we are looking to address them.
Let me talk about the issue of childhood obesity—an issue close to my heart, as a former Minister for Public Health. The UK has one of the highest obesity rates among developed countries, with soft drinks still one of the biggest sources of sugar in children’s diets. That is a cost not only to the productivity of our economy but to the public purse; indeed, there is also a great cost to individuals. The direct cost to the NHS of treating ill health due to people being overweight and to obesity totals over £6 billion a year.
The Bill will legislate for a new soft drinks industry levy to encourage producers to reduce added sugar in their drinks. The levy is working already: there have been reformulation announcements by Tesco, by the makers of Lucozade and Ribena, and of course by A. G. Barr relatively recently. I have had discussions with several companies during recent months, and I understand the effort and investment they are putting into changing their product and portfolio mix.
Even though revenues from the levy will be lower as a result of the earlier than expected reformulations—unusually, we in that sense welcome the fact that predicted revenues will be lower, because the policy is working early—we will maintain the full £1 billion funding for the Department for Education during this Parliament that we pledged to make. That is further evidence that the Government are committed to tackling childhood obesity. It is part of a programme of work being carried on across Departments to deliver fairer outcomes for future generations.
Nigel Mills
I agree that changing what people consume without their knowing it, and without their having to change their own behaviour, will get the calorie reductions that we want. If that is the argument, I am intrigued about why we are going for the soft drinks industry, which has produced diet brands that use no sugar and contain no calories, and has innovated with things such as Coca-Cola Life that have reduced calories and reduced sugar content by using different sugars. There is a risk that industries that have spent lots of money developing popular products and marketing them will think, “We do all that investment and are still getting clobbered by a levy, whereas other industries that do not do that investment do not have a levy. Perhaps we should not invest and run the risk.”
We can debate this at length, but what we are trying to do is right. The childhood obesity crisis is such that we have to take some measures. I accept that this measure targets something that contributes to that crisis, but as we develop this policy I would like us to have a clear thing that consumers can see in the shop which says, “This is unhealthy, so it will cost you more.” That would be a better way of getting the behavioural change and the change in diets we need, and it is likely to be more effective in the long run.
Kirsty Blackman
I appreciate the point the hon. Gentleman is making and I have a lot of sympathy with his wider point about reducing the consumption of sugary food. His point about making it obvious to people what they are consuming is interesting, and that could be done more widely, in relation not just to soft drinks, but to things such as pasta sauces, which contain a huge amount of sugar but where there is a lack of awareness. One of the biggest things we can do to change behaviour is increase awareness, rather than increasing the cost on all these things.
Nigel Mills
I agree with the hon. Lady about that. The products we should probably be targeting are those people think might be healthy but are not. I may buy a smoothie thinking that it contains lots of fruit so it must be good for me, but it, too, is high in calories. It is not a bad thing to consume that fruit; I need to have it as part of a balanced diet. Certain milk drinks are incredibly bad for people and may be worse than many soft drinks, but I am not entirely clear that the levy applies to those. If we had structured a tax that went on something high in sugar or high in calories, that may have been a way of getting to the outcome we were after.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I want to talk about quite a few things. I might have given a somewhat different speech had there not been a general election looming. I might have kept my speech briefer, because I would have known that we would get the chance to discuss things in Committee of the whole House and Public Bill Committee. But just now, everything seems to be up for grabs and there is no clarity about what we will get to discuss. It is really important to lay out the SNP’s position on several matters so that the Government are absolutely clear about where we stand as they make decisions before prorogation. We are in quite uncharted territory.
I want to start by talking about the budgetary process and the issues around it. Earlier this year, the “Better Budgets” report was published by the Chartered Institute of Taxation, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Institute for Government. They made several recommendations for making the budgetary process better and ensuring that better decisions are made. I have written to ask the Select Committee on Procedure to look at the procedural matters that could be changed to meet the recommendations. The Government have already done one thing; the report suggested that we should have only one fiscal event a year, and the Government have agreed to that. I am pleased that they have done so, and I think it makes much more sense for the planning process, consultation and scrutiny if everything happens in a single event rather than being split over two different events.
I would also like the Government to consider taking evidence in the Finance Bill Committee. It is a slightly bizarre quirk of the Finance Bill that we do not take evidence in the Committee, and I think it would be really sensible to do so. I know that the Treasury Committee takes evidence, but it is different from the Finance Bill Committee, so the members of the Bill Committee do not necessarily hear the things that are said. I would appreciate it if the Government considered that.
Generally, I have been fairly critical of the budgetary process, the lack of scrutiny around it and the lack of consultation about some of the measures. Things have been slightly better in the last couple of years and fewer rabbits have been brought out of hats, but that still happens and it still inspires U-turns, as we have seen. This Government and future Governments have a huge amount of work to do to secure better scrutiny of the budgetary process and enable better decisions to be made. Decisions are more likely to stick and to be adhered to if they are good decisions in the first place.
I want to talk about a few things, including a few things that are actually in the Finance Bill. The elephant in the room, which was not talked about enough at the Budget, is Brexit and its impacts. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) covered a lot of that.
One thing that must not be underestimated is the impact of inflation on households, particularly those that have less than £100 in savings. The statistics show us that nearly 50% of households are in that position. For a lot of people here, who have been relatively comfortably off for most of their lives, it is quite hard to understand that. But it is quite easy to end up without that much in savings. It is quite easy to be a broken-down washing machine and a new car battery away from financial disaster, or to be a couple of months without pay away from real financial problems. As my hon. Friend also mentioned, people in that position do not have the access to debt and credit that they used to have. That is a problem that we are storing up for the future, and things such as the changes around ISAs do not help a huge amount. People can save into ISAs only if they have money to save. Changes to wages and the living wage have been positive—
Victoria Atkins
Does the hon. Lady accept, in the spirit of this part of her speech, that the introduction of the national living wage and its increase this very month to £7.50 help exactly the people whom she is talking about, and that raising the threshold at which we start to pay income tax must help as well?
Kirsty Blackman
I absolutely agree that things such as the national living wage—it is not a living wage, however; it is an increase in the minimum wage, and no calculation is done as to whether people can live on it—and the increase in the personal allowance have been positive for people at the bottom of the pile, in particular. However, the reduction in tax credits more than balances things out in many cases. People are losing more as a result of the changes to tax credits, for example, than they are gaining from the changes to the personal allowance and the minimum wage. I absolutely agree that those things are positive, but people are still feeling that their household budgets are squeezed by the cost of food going up in recent weeks, for example, which is set to increase, particularly for imported food.
A few people have mentioned intergenerational fairness, which is a real issue for me that I have spoken about a lot, and there has been a lot of stuff in the news this week about millennials. I am one of the 39 millennial MPs—I am 31 this year and was born in 1986—and many of my peers are worse off than their parents’ generation was in terms of the wages that they can expect to receive at a younger age and their access to property, whether through property ownership or through rents as a proportion of their income. This is purely anecdotal, but many people at my age are thinking about putting off having children because they cannot afford a secure home. For a Government looking forward to a future tax take, that is a real issue for a few years down the line. Many people have spoken about that, although we do not yet have the statistics for how the numbers will look.
The hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) talked about the gig economy, and I get that the Government need to find a different way to tax it due to the avoidance of normal tax routes. However, we need to find a different way to ensure that young people who find themselves working in the gig economy have a measure of stability in their lives and can continue to be able to pay money that they owe, such as rent, in order to finance what is a reasonable lifestyle, rather than a particularly comfortable one.
On austerity, I have mentioned the changes that the Government have made for those at the very bottom of the pile who need to claim benefits—not just out-of-work benefits, but tax credits and so on, which encourage people into work. According to what we hear from those who come into our constituency offices, the Government’s changes to the Motability cars scheme have made it more difficult for people to access work, because their vehicle has been taken away, which has an impact on the Government’s tax take and will increase the amount of benefits that will need to be paid to some people.
Moving from the general context to some of the specific issues in the Finance Bill and the things on which we want the Government to be aware of our views, I will start off with the police and fire services. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) mentioned the VAT on police and fire services in Scotland. We have raised this matter on many occasions and will not stop raising it, because the Government do not have a principled position. They cannot say that they are treating Scotland fairly when they have allowed VAT exemptions for Highways England and the London Legacy Development Corporation, which is a UK-wide organisation. The Government cannot stand on the moral high ground, because they have allowed those exemptions. We ask again that the UK Government change the VAT treatment of the Scottish police and fire services. I imagine that they will say no, but we are asking again and will not stop asking until a UK Government of whatever colour change the VAT treatment.
We also want to raise the issue of Scotch whisky, as people may imagine. The above-inflation increase in Scotch whisky taxation is a real issue for our whisky producers. International trading is slightly more uncertain than it has previously been due to Brexit, so whisky trading with European markets could be less easy than in the past, and the same could be said for countries that the EU has free trade arrangements with. Whisky is a high-value product. It creates a huge number of jobs in Scotland. It generates taxation for the UK Government at levels that are not pennies. The UK Government need to think seriously about how they are treating Scotch whisky, and if this Bill goes its full course, we will table an amendment stating that we do not want this above-inflation increase in taxation.
My hon. Friends the Members for East Lothian and for Dundee East both mentioned insurance premium tax, so I will not rehash the arguments too much, but it is being levied largely on people who purchase insurance who are just trying to do the right thing by getting insurance. They are trying to create a safety net for themselves, and the Government should be applauding that, not taxing it. The problem is that the tax has increased dramatically even over the two years that I have been an MP. The Government need to think carefully about whether insurance is a sensible place to tax people when it forms part of a behaviour that we want to encourage.
Colleagues on both sides of the House have talked about their support for the soft drinks levy and positive changes relating to childhood obesity, mentioning the studies that have been done on whether it will make it a difference. The Health Committee suggested that it is important for milk-based drinks to be included and, having looked at the Government’s rationale, their statements on milk-based drinks and the Health Committee’s report, I do not see a good reason for them to be excluded—some milk-based drinks have the same proportion of sugar as their non-milk-based counterparts. If the Bill were to run its full course, we would table amendments suggesting that the loophole should be closed. We generally support the measure, but the loophole should not be left open. If we are creating such a tax in primary legislation, we should do it properly. There is no good reason for milk-based drinks to be excluded at the moment.
There has been a lack of consultation on Making Tax Digital and the changes to self-employment, and the UK Government have had to change their position on a number of things. They have had to slow down the roll-out of Making Tax Digital and change their position on national insurance for the self-employed. Partly because the consultation done in advance is not good enough, they do not properly understand the implications of what they are doing before they do it and, therefore, have to row back on it. Real change is needed.
Some Conservative Members have mentioned the proposed changes to things such as the taxation of self-employment. I get that the UK Government are trying to equalise self-employment and employment, but those in employment get the benefits of holiday pay, maternity leave, sick pay and all those things. If there is to be a massive change to the treatment of self-employment, it must be looked at in its entirety. The changes must be made within that context, rather than the tinkering around the edges that we get in Budgets with a general movement towards a general idea.
The Government should make no changes to this for the next few years while they do a comprehensive survey and work out what self-employment looks like now, in 2017-18. The kind of people who are self-employed certainly did not look the same 10 or 15 years ago—the number of women in self-employment is much higher than in previous years—and we need to make sure that the goalposts are not moved for them. The tinkering needs to stop. If the Government are to make changes, they should make them in one go after a proper consultation. They should make a reasonable change in one move.
Talking about a lack of consultation moves me on nicely to oil and gas. I was frustrated with the UK Government’s spring Budget because they announced exactly the same thing as they announced last year on the transfer of late-life assets. The Minister is shaking her head, but the transfer of late-life assets was announced in last year’s spring Budget. This year the Government have announced exactly the same thing about making it easier to transfer late-life assets, but now they will have a group of experts look at it. Why did they not do that last year? I am frustrated that this has not happened quickly enough. I would have liked it to happen more quickly, but I am pleased that the UK Government are doing it. We have been asking for it for a long time and it is a positive move, but they need to move a bit quicker.
We are seeing platforms move towards decommissioning as fields move towards the end of their useful life. Getting oil out of those fields will not be a priority for the big players, but if a new entrant were to come in and take on an asset, it would get as much oil or gas out of it as possible. We need to encourage such behaviour. If the UK Government do not do that, they will have less tax income in future, so it is key for everyone that it happens.
Let me move on to other matters relating to oil and gas—the UK Government will not be surprised to hear us calling for these because we have called for them before and we will keep doing so in the hope that they might actually happen. We want changes on exploration. Although the moves the Government have made on seismic surveys have been hugely positive and very much welcomed—we really appreciate them—we need to make it easier and more cost-effective for companies to explore. We need more exploration allowances. A huge amount of oil is still under the North sea, and the UK Government could receive a huge amount of revenue from the extraction of these minerals. They need to take action now to secure those future levels of taxation.
So there are a few things the UK Government can do. Exploration is really important, as are small pools. I have lost my notes on this, but I believe there is the equivalent of 3.4 billion barrels of oil in small pools in the North sea. There are more than 360 pools with less than 50 million barrels of oil where extraction is not yet taking place. Those pools are treated in the same way for tax purposes as all the other pools, but we could do some fairly simple things to make them much more economically viable. We could remove the supplementary charge on small pools, which would reduce the taxation level from 40% to 30%. That would make it much more likely that we get anything at all from some of those pools.
We could change the taxation level for those small pools so that it is equivalent to the level for onshore oil and gas extraction. The Government obviously think that that level is reasonable for onshore extraction, so it should also be reasonable for these areas where the technology is new. Extracting from a small pool is different from extracting from the bigger areas—those we have previously extracted from—and people are going to have to innovate to do this. The tax system needs to recognise that this is more difficult to do and that we are not talking about the bigger pumping that we saw previously. This is a different situation and the UK Government will not get any tax take from these pools if they do not do something about it.
I have two more things to say about oil and gas—Members would expect an Aberdeen MP to talk about oil and gas! Some Conservative Members were talking about private capital, and companies and businesses not having enough access to capital investment. We have been calling on the UK Government to be more positive about oil and gas supply chain companies so that they can get increased investment. There is a huge, positive future for oil and gas companies, particularly in the supply chain. The North sea is the gold standard for things related to supply chain extraction and the services that we provide; I am told that you cannot go to Houston without hearing an Aberdonian accent, because of the number people, as well as the skills and expertise, that we have exported. Even in these times of reduced revenues coming from the oil and gas that they are extracting, those companies still need to be innovating, in order to get the more difficult oil and gas out. They need capital financing to do that, and the UK Government need to do what they can to make sure that those companies are linked with the right people and that, for example, banks are not cancelling overdrafts at a moment’s notice. Those changes need to be made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig) and I recently had a meeting with the London Stock Exchange Group, when we invited it to Aberdeen to talk to companies about its ELITE programme, which trains companies in accessing capital financing. Although it was a hugely positive meeting, not enough of these companies knew about such schemes or where they could go to get finance. There is a real issue to address and the UK Government need to do what they can to be positive, particularly in relation to the oil and gas supply chain, so that we can secure that future in Aberdeen and the UK more widely.
On that note, the other thing the SNP were going to table an amendment on—we still will if we have the opportunity—was UK content. Decommissioning is coming through in a bigger way. It is not by any means the end of exploration and other things in the North sea, but we are going to see more decommissioning in the coming years. A huge number of people are concerned that not enough of the decommissioning tenders are going to UK companies. Currently, not enough of the tenders for other things relating to oil and gas are going to UK companies, either. We would like the UK Government to take action to see what they can do to ensure that, wherever they can be, companies are incentivised to use UK suppliers and UK content. That would be hugely positive for jobs, including high-value jobs, in the UK.
It is important that the UK Government think about oil and gas and keep it front and centre, because it certainly was not enough of a priority in the industrial strategy and the leaked documents on Brexit priorities. Given the amount of revenue the UK Treasury has received from the oil and gas industry and the amount of future revenue, we need to ensure that the industry is listened to and that as much as possible is done to make sure that the UK Government can take the maximum amount of taxation.
On tax collection and avoidance, a 2014 Credit Suisse report on the success of small countries mentioned the fact that for large countries corporate tax collection as a percentage of GDP is significantly smaller than for small countries. That is partly an issue of size, but this is a real problem that will continue to come through for the UK Government. Over the past couple of days we have seen news reports about Border Force officials being stretched as it is and not being able to take action on immigration. Well, Border Force staff also deal with some of the customs issues. If we do not have an appropriate customs service in place, we will not be able to ensure that we collect the right amount from whatever tariffs we have in place. That will be another tax loss for the UK Government, so wherever they need to upskill, they should upskill. Frontline staff will have to ensure that tax is collected in the new scenarios where currently we are not having to do nearly as much tax collection.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate. As I have said several times, we do not know what is going to happen with the rest of the Bill, but I think I have made as clear as I can the SNP’s position on the things that we consider to be most important.
Kirsty Blackman
Main Page: Kirsty Blackman (Scottish National Party - Aberdeen North)Department Debates - View all Kirsty Blackman's debates with the HM Treasury
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Kirsty Blackman ExcerptsTuesday 25th April 2017
(7 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 25 April 2017 - (25 Apr 2017)
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I warmly welcome the new hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) to what is left of this short Parliament. I am particularly pleased that we have finally broken the barrier of the number of women who have been elected— I am really delighted that that has happened. As a child I holidayed in her constituency, and I fondly remember visiting where Beatrix Potter created her animals and the Beatrix Potter museum. I can see the passion with which the hon. Lady speaks about her constituency and the amount she obviously cares about the area in which she was born and bred. She is a truly local MP, so I offer her a huge welcome to the House. Who knows whether she, or any of us, will be coming back in June? But welcome, anyway.
This first group of measures addresses income tax, but I will also comment on the way that the Bill is progressing through Parliament. With the surprise announcement of a general election, the Bill looks rather different from when it was first introduced. I am sure the Minister is in a similar position, but we received provisional notification of the amount of withdrawals and changes only last night, so there will not be the normal level of scrutiny of some things in the Bill. There will possibly also be slight confusion in today’s proceedings, given that so many things are being withdrawn.
I welcome the Government’s withdrawal of the dividend tax threshold changes, which we argued against on Second Reading. I am pleased that they have chosen to do that because it was a particularly contentious part of the Bill. More generally on the income tax changes, I have said previously and am happy to state again that I appreciate the Government’s increases to the personal allowance and the minimum wage. But I have said previously and say again that the Government have not gone far enough. We have a national living wage, but there has been no calculation of whether people can live on it.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the national living wage is not actually a real living wage but a pretend living wage and that it does not go far enough in that it is available only to people over the age of 25?
Kirsty Blackman
I agree that it is a real problem that this increased minimum wage does not apply to people under 25. Just because a person is under 25 does not mean they are doing any less of a job than a person over 25, and the minimum wage should apply to them just as much as to those who are older.
The other issue is that the tax credit changes more than balance out the extra money people are getting from the increased minimum wage and personal allowance. People at the bottom of the pile are worse off as a result of the Government’s decisions. Despite the Government’s talk about how great the new personal allowance and the new minimum wage are, they have to be considered in context. People who work are worse off as a result of the tax credit changes.
More generally, the Government have made a few suggestions on the taxation of self-employment, some of which have been withdrawn and some of which have not. They intend to try to equalise the taxation of employment and self-employment. However, what is missing is that people in self-employment do not receive the same benefits as people in employment, such as maternity leave and holiday entitlement. I have argued before and will argue again that if the Government are making changes to self-employment, they need to do so in the round. The need to stop this piecemeal tinkering and consider the whole situation. They need to do a proper review and come back with the results, and then consult on any changes. Rather than pulling rabbits out of hats—changing national insurance contributions with very little consultation, for example—they need to consult properly on how taxation should look for individuals, whether they are employed or self-employed.
I appreciate that the Government are undertaking the Taylor review, but I am not sure it goes far enough. I would like to see the Taylor review, or a future Government review, take self-employment into account in the round by considering all the factors that face the self-employed. We need to remember the changes in the self-employment landscape in recent years. We have seen a massive increase in the number of women and older people in self-employment, and the Government’s changes do not take into account the changes in that landscape. I would like to see a holistic approach, rather than a tinkering approach.
That is all I have to say on this group but, again, I welcome the Government’s withdrawal of the dividend tax threshold changes.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) on a fine maiden speech and thank her for her well-deserved compliment to her predecessor on his service. She spoke with passion, wit and understanding of her beautiful constituency, as well as of Peter Rabbit. None of us envies her speedy transition from by-election to general election, but I do congratulate her.
I made my maiden speech to this House on the remaining stages of the 1987 Finance Bill, so there is a certain symmetry in my making my last remarks on this one. On the substance of the Bill, it is too often overlooked—the hon. Lady talked about balancing public spending—that, although the Conservative party often talks about balancing the budget, the last Government to do so were Labour in 2001-02. Right now, it makes sense to invest more in productive infrastructure, training and public services, with action to combat poverty and to secure Brexit terms that enable our country to grow and flourish. I wish we had a Finance Bill for social justice that stands up for the many, not the few. That is what we need a Labour Government for.
It has been a privilege to be an MP, in and out of government, and I thank the staff of the House, the Library, those who keep us safe and you, Mr Hoyle, and your colleagues. I am grateful to all colleagues and wish them well for the future.
I would like to say a huge thank you to all those who have helped me serve the wonderful constituency of Oxford East for 30 years; my family and friends; my neighbours in Blackbird Leys; our party members and supporters; my trade union, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers; my office staff and party organisers across the years; and, most of all, my constituents. Thank you.
Kirsty Blackman
People have told me that no matter what information they have put in, they have always been told that they have to pay more tax than they were expecting. Concerns have been raised with me about that online tool and its shortcomings, and about the fact that HMRC is always asking people to pay a level of tax that they think is wrong or too high.
Jane Ellison
Given where we are in this Parliament, the best thing the hon. Lady can do is to send details on that, immediately and before Dissolution, so that HMRC can look at the factual issues. I am surprised by what she says, but let us ask HMRC to look at the practical issues she raises—while we are off doing other things, it can perhaps look at those if she supplies the information in the next few days. HMRC has worked with the Cabinet Office Crown Commercial Service to produce guidance for public authorities and has supported them to implement the changes.
Government amendment 10 is a technical one to ensure that the reform only applies to the public sector, as set out in the Government’s original announcement.
In conclusion, the Government believe it is essential to ensure that public funds are used correctly and that those in receipt of them are paying the correct amount of tax. The changes being made by clause 7 and schedule 1 will improve compliance with the tax rules, raising a substantial amount of revenue by 2021-22. I therefore ask Members to support this clause and schedule, along with clause 8, schedule 2, clauses 11 and 48, schedule 16 and clause 127.
Kirsty Blackman
I wish to discuss the issues raised in this group, including by my new clause 1. The Minister has covered the IR35 issues in some detail, but the Scottish National party still has real concerns about these changes. Just the other day somebody told me that they are no longer bidding for public sector contracts as a result of the tax changes made on IR35. That is a real concern, which we have raised before, particularly in the context of rural communities. In some of our most rural communities, people such as teachers, doctors and nurses are employed through intermediaries, and for very good reasons: it is sometimes difficult to get people to come to some of the most rural parts of Scotland. We are concerned that this move is going to have a real disadvantageous effect, particularly for rural communities that rely on teachers, doctors and other individuals working in the public sector who are employed through intermediaries. I understand that it is already having an effect, but it would be interesting, and I would very much appreciate it, if the Government let us know what difference it has made, not only to the tax take, but to our communities. Having read through the Government’s document on the impact of the tax changes, called OOTLAR—the overview of tax legislation and rates—I do not think they have recognised the impact the changes could have on communities, so it would be interesting to see what that impact is. The change has already been made and people are now working under it, so I imagine that within six months or so we will be able to see the outcomes and whether or not there is a disadvantage.
New clause 1 is on tax avoidance, which the Scottish National party has spoken about at length in this Parliament, and about which we will continue to speak at length. Tax avoidance is a real concern and contributes to the UK tax gap, which is £36 billion. Back in 2014, Credit Suisse published a report suggesting that larger countries such as the United Kingdom struggle to get people not to avoid tax. Smaller countries are much better at it—I am just pointing that out. The new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review within two months international best practice in relation to the prevention and reduction of tax avoidance arrangements and combating tax evasion, and to publish a report of the review. We are asking for that because we do not think that the United Kingdom is the best place in the world at tackling tax avoidance. It is certainly not the best place in the world at all the different ways of tackling tax avoidance; we could learn a huge amount from what different countries are doing. The new clause would be a sensible way forward, so I hope the Government are keen to accept it.
Something else we have mentioned in relation to tax avoidance is the protection of whistleblowers. Some whistleblowers tend towards having poor health as result of their whistleblowing. It is really important that people are encouraged to come forward if they see problems, and that we are making it as easy as possible for them to do so, because we need people to be whistleblowers. We need them to tell us where practice is going wrong and where tax dodging is happening. We would support the Government in any action they take to encourage whistleblowers and to create a better environment in which they can come forward.
Lastly, there has been talk of the possibility of the United Kingdom becoming a tax haven after Brexit. We absolutely reject the notion that after Brexit the United Kingdom should reduce all taxes to nearly nothing. For a start, that just does not work if we want to have public services such as the NHS—
Kirsty Blackman
I hope everybody present is supportive of the NHS, but I get why my hon. Friend has the impression that some people are not. We need our NHS to continue to be supported, and for that we need taxes to continue to come in.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that the focus should be on maximising the tax take? A reduction in tax rates can actually lead to an increase in the tax take.
Kirsty Blackman
I agree that the focus should be on maximising the tax take, but I would go about it in a slightly different way by trying to encourage companies and individuals and by encouraging the economy to grow. I would try to get people back into more productive jobs in order to increase productivity. The Government have mentioned increasing productivity, which is something we have been pretty good at doing in Scotland in recent times; our productivity increase has been significant and much higher than the productivity increase south of the border. Those are the measures I would start with to grow the economy.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?
Mr Nuttall
Well, we have plenty of time. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Does she not agree that by reducing taxes, particularly corporation tax, in this country, we are more likely to attract inward investment and new companies from around the globe to this country, thereby producing the taxes to pay for our public services?
Kirsty Blackman
I do not believe that there is a huge amount of evidence for that. When companies are looking at where to base their headquarters and their staff, corporation tax does not feature all that high up the list. They are looking for good infrastructure, schools and support for individuals in the community. Corporation tax is not at the top of the list, so I would do other things first to try to encourage inward investment, if it were me who was in government and making those decisions.
Kirsty Blackman
Mr Hoyle, that is the end of my comments on this group.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 9 and 10 disagreed to.
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 12 to 16 disagreed to.
Clauses 17 and 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 19 and 20 disagreed to.
Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 22 to 44 disagreed to.
Clauses 45 to 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 48
Employment Income Provided through Third Parties
Amendment made: 4, page 49, line 26, leave out
“Schedules 16 and 17 make”
and insert “Schedule 16 makes”.—(Jane Ellison.)
Clause 48, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 49 to 56 disagreed to.
Clause 57
VAT: Zero-rating of Adapted Motor Vehicles Etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Jane Ellison
Let me just complete the exposition of why these bodies do not qualify.
Both those new bodies are funded centrally rather than through local taxation and therefore do not meet the eligibility criteria for section 33 VAT refunds. The Treasury warned the Scottish Government in advance that making these changes would result in the loss of VAT refunds. In deciding to go ahead, the Scottish Government fully considered the costs and benefits of doing so, including the loss of VAT refunds. Therefore, there is no additional benefit to be had from the Government committing resource and time to produce a report on this issue. I therefore urge the Committee to reject new clause 2.
Kirsty Blackman
Just on that, can the Financial Secretary tell us how London Legacy and Highways England are funded?
Jane Ellison
Again, those are matters that have been covered before. I refer the hon. Lady to comments that I have made previously in response to very similar interventions. These measures have been discussed not just in Finance Bills, but during the passage of the Scotland Bill. Again, the message was the same that this was a decision taken in the full knowledge of the VAT consequences. Once again, I urge the House to reject the new clause that calls for a review.
Kirsty Blackman
If the Minister changes the VAT treatment of the Scottish police and the fire and rescue service, I promise not to raise the matter again in the House. I can see that she is fed up with discussing it, but, frankly, so am I. If the Government were to move on this, we would not have to raise it again.
Patrick Grady
The other option open to the Government is to devolve power over VAT to the Scottish Parliament, so that it could make all of these decisions. We were promised the most powerful legislature in the world, so why do the Government not live up to that commitment and give us the powers that we need?
Kirsty Blackman
I agree with my colleague. We have a portion of VAT devolved to the Scottish Parliament, which does not make a huge amount of sense. Although we obviously welcome any new powers coming to the Scottish Parliament, it would be much better if we had control over all of VAT, rather than have a portion of the income from VAT coming to us.
The Scottish police and the fire and rescue service are charged VAT unlike Highways England, which is a national English body, and unlike London Legacy, which is a national UK-wide body. The UK Government have created exemptions for both of those organisations, but not for Scottish police and Scottish fire. This costs the Scottish people, because Scottish police and Scottish fire are having to pay this VAT bill to the UK Government rather than having this money to spend.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
This VAT charge is costing Scotland’s emergency services tens of millions of pounds a year. Does my hon. Friend agree that our constituents would rather that this money was spent on fighting crime and funding emergency services in Scotland than on plugging the holes in the Tory Government’s budget because of their poor financial planning and budgeting?
Kirsty Blackman
I absolutely agree with my colleague.
In June 2016, it was reported that, since it was formed three years previously, Scotland’s single police force has paid £76.5 million in VAT, and it remains unable to reclaim that tax. The UK Government have created exemptions for other bodies that they see as important. Why do they see London Legacy and Highways England as more important than Scottish police and Scottish fire? We again ask the UK Government to change that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 57 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
IPT: Standard Rate
Question proposed, That clause 58 stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to consider clause 59 stand part.
Jane Ellison
I am coming to that, but the Chancellor was admirably clear when he laid the change out for the House when it was announced.
The Government have worked to eliminate the deficit and to invest in Britain’s future. We want to ensure that the public finances remain sustainable and to build resilience to future shocks. We have prioritised tax changes to help ordinary working families, and encouraged businesses to invest in the UK. We are supporting jobs and helping people’s money to go further through increases to the personal allowance and the national living wage. We have committed to investing £23 billion for infrastructure in the national productivity investment fund and an extra £2 billion for social care, which will ease pressures on the national health service.
By increasing insurance premium tax, we will ensure that we can maintain the balance between that investment and controlling the deficit. The additional revenue gives the Government the flexibility to invest. IPT is a tax on insurers. They are not in any way obliged to pass on the tax through higher premiums. However, if insurers do choose to pass on the increase, it will be spread thinly across a wide range of people and businesses. In line with the informal agreement between the Government and the Association of British Insurers, firms have been given more than six months’ notice, which gives time to implement the change. The agreement aims to give insurers proper warning of a rate change and to ensure that the correct rate of tax on a policy is known when the policy is arranged.
The changes made by clause 58 will raise approximately £840 million each year to reduce the deficit, while ensuring that we can fund spending commitments. That really is the answer to the intervention by the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan). Insurance premium tax is a tax on insurers, not consumers. It will be insurance companies’ choice whether to pass on the 2% rate increase. Even if the increases were passed on in full, the impact would be modest, costing households less than 35p a week on average.
The changes made by clause 59 will protect revenue by ensuring that insurers cannot artificially avoid paying the new rate of IPT by adjusting contract dates. As I have said, the Government are committed to reducing the deficit, while still investing in the UK. This requires some difficult decisions, including this 2% increase to the standard rate of IPT. The change will be invaluable in funding vital public spending, such as the additional £2 billion committed to social care.
Kirsty Blackman
It is really interesting to hear the Minister say that the change will only cost an average of 35p a week. That is quite a lot, particularly for people who do not have an extra 35p a week. The director general of the ABI said:
“UK consumers and businesses already pay relatively high levels of IPT… It cannot be right that people are being forced to pay an increasingly high price for doing the responsible thing”.
As my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) said, this is the third increase. At the start of this Parliament, IPT was at something like 3%. It was then increased to 6.5% and then to 9.5% during this Parliament. This is a tax on people doing the right thing by insuring their homes and properties. I agree with the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who spoke about a scout group, that this is also a tax on charities and organisations providing a brilliant experience for young boys and girls going through scouting. The change has not been considered in the round; the Government have seen another opportunity to get a few extra pennies in.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The hon. Lady, like me, may have a rural constituency, where there are lots of young drivers experiencing high insurance costs. Would she welcome signs from the Minister that the Government will look at the impact of the change on the young in the future, particularly if it has an impact on social mobility for the young?
Kirsty Blackman
I do not actually have a rural constituency, but I do live near one, so I recognise the issues that are faced by young drivers. We want young people, particularly those in rural areas, to be able to access services, learn to drive safely and afford insurance when they do, so that they can travel and access jobs, opportunities and training. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and also ask the Government to look at this area. We cannot continue to see hikes in insurance premium tax. A 20% hike is absolutely ridiculous, especially as it follows hot on the heels of a number of other hikes in insurance premium tax. The Government need to look at this seriously and commit to not making any further increases in the next Parliament.
Jane Ellison
I plan to focus my comments in this part of the debate on alcohol duties, which I anticipate will be of greatest interest to hon. Members. Other clauses within the group provide for other duty changes, and a new clause has been tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) on the oil and gas decommissioning regime, which we may come to.
Clause 65 sets out changes to alcohol duty rates that took effect on 13 March 2017. We announced in the 2017 Budget that the duty rates on beer, cider, wine and spirits will be kept flat in real terms, uprating by retail price index inflation. This is in line with policy and previous forecasts. As hon. Members will probably be aware, the public finances assume that alcohol duties rise by RPI inflation each year, so there is a cost to the Exchequer from freezing or cutting alcohol duty rates. If alcohol duty rates had been frozen or cut at Budget 2017, the Government would instead have had to raise taxes in other areas of the economy, to cut public spending or to increase the public deficit. Consumers and businesses continue to benefit from the previous alcohol duty changes, which initial estimates suggest will save them around £3 billion in duty between fiscal years 2013 and 2017. I will now briefly set out how past duty changes and other Government policies have affected different drinks and the sector.
I will start with spirits duty. The Government recognise the important contribution that Scotch whisky makes to the economy and local communities. The Scotch Whisky Association, which I had a meeting with and had the chance to hear from directly, estimates that Scotch whisky adds over £5 billion overall to the UK economy and supports more than 40,000 jobs, some 7,000 of which are in the rural economy. Distilleries provide an important source of employment in rural communities. The Scotch Whisky Association estimates that exports to nearly 200 countries in every continent were worth nearly £4 billion last year and accounted for about 20% of all UK food and drink exports. Single malt Scotch whisky exports exceeded £1 billion for the first time last year, and more Scotch whisky is sold in France in just one month than cognac in an entire year.
The Government are committed to supporting this great British success story. Scotch whisky was one of the first food and drink products to feature in the GREAT campaign, giving it high visibility internationally in key markets. More recently, the Scotch Whisky Association joined my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on her trade mission to India last year. Scotch whisky is currently just 1% of the Indian spirits market, but it has the potential to grow to 5% with the right trade agreement. That would be equivalent to a 10% increase in the current global trade in Scotch.
The spirits duty escalator was ended in 2014, and the tax on a bottle of Scotch whisky is now 90p lower than it would otherwise have been. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North has tabled an amendment to reverse the uprating as applied to spirits. To be clear, that would not help exports, because the £4 billion of exports a year are unaffected by the duty change, as no duty is paid on exported spirits. Instead, it would help those selling in the UK market. The amendment would cost the Exchequer, and so increase the deficit by, around £100 million this year. For the reasons I have indicated—not least the bottom line scorecard cost—the Government reject the amendment, which would not help exporters of whisky or other spirits and which is unfunded. Clause 65 will keep spirit duty rates flat in real terms, so consumers will continue to benefit from the previous change to spirit duty rates.
While we are on spirits, I should touch on another great British success: the UK gin industry. When I met the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, it informed me that, in 2016, gin sales exceeded £1 billion for the first time in the UK. I suspect that many of us will be partaking of a number of these products in the weeks ahead. [Interruption.] I said many of us. We will be partaking perhaps in celebration or perhaps for sustenance —who knows what reason. It is good that we put these British success stories on record.
I was also told that the number of gin brands has more than doubled since 2010. [Interruption.] Yes, doubles all round. The price of a typical bottle of gin remains 84p lower than it would have been now that we have ended the spirits duty escalator. As with Scotch whisky, no UK duty is payable on exported gin.
As well as ending the spirits duty escalator, we also ended the beer duty escalator to help pubs. Pubs play an important role in promoting responsible drinking, providing employment and contributing to community life—that sentiment is expressed regularly on both sides of the House. Brewers also make an important contribution to local economies. The increase in the number of small breweries in recent years has increased diversity and choice in the beer market. By promoting interest in a larger range of beers, that has benefited all brewers.
The clause will not undo the previous beer duty cuts or freezes. The Government cut the tax on a typical pint by one penny at Budgets 2013, 2014 and 2015 and then froze duty rates last year. As a result, drinkers are paying 11p less in tax on a typical pint this year than they otherwise would have paid.
On wine duty, the Government are committed to supporting the UK wine industry. The first joint industry and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs wine roundtable last year resulted in a set of industry targets, including to increase wine exports tenfold and to double production to 10 million bottles by 2020. The wine sector will continue to benefit from the previous changes to wine duty rates.
Cider makers, too, play an important role in rural economies, using over half the apples grown in the UK. The duty on a typical pint of cider remains around half the duty on a typical pint of beer. The tax on a typical pint remains 3p lower than it would otherwise have been, as a result of the Government’s changes to cider duty rates since Budget 2014.
To conclude, we fully recognise the importance of the alcohol industry to the economy and local communities. I have talked with and met various representatives from across the industry, and I will, of course, continue to engage with them. The cuts and freezes in duty rates since the ending of the alcohol duty escalators continue to deliver great benefits. They will save consumers and businesses around £3 billion in duty between fiscal years 2013 and 2017. However, allowing alcohol duties to fall every year in real terms would be unsustainable in the long term. If alcohol duties had been frozen or cut at Budget 2017, the Government would instead have had to raise taxes in other areas of the economy, cut public spending or increase the public deficit. The clause simply increases duties in line with inflation, as assumed in the fiscal forecasts. This is not a return to the real-terms increases year after year imposed by the alcohol duty escalator. I therefore suggest that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Kirsty Blackman
I will start by talking about alcohol and whisky, and then I will move on to talk about oil and gas. Specifically on whisky, I appreciate the Minister taking the time to talk about the contribution of the Scotch whisky industry. It does, indeed, contribute to our economy; of particular note are the 40,000 jobs it provides, including the 7,000 in the rural economy, which are really important for Scotland’s rural communities.
The positive changes the UK Government previously made to spirit duty meant there was confidence in the industry again, and we have seen a real change in the industry over the last couple of years, with a dozen new distilleries opening and 14 in various stages of planning, but the changes that have been made this year will put 36p on a bottle of whisky and mean that £4 of every £5 spent on whisky goes to the UK Government’s coffers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), who is the chair of the all-party group on Scotch whisky, spoke about this issue on Second Reading, although not at enough length—he got only four minutes. He is really concerned about distilleries. I appreciate the Minister talking about the success story that the gin industry has been for new distilleries—it takes a long time to mature Scotch whisky but not to mature gin, so distilleries can be up and running pretty quickly. The issue is the context in which things are seen. I understand that, as the Minister said, the change will not affect those selling abroad, but given that most producers sell whisky in the domestic market, it will obviously have an effect on those who also sell abroad.
In the wider context of Brexit, where the trade deals we currently have will no longer exist and we will have to negotiate new trade deals, including with the EU, if we are to sell whisky to France, as the Minister mentioned, we will need to have a trade deal. We will need to have trade deals with all the countries we trade with under the EU’s free trade agreements.
A major concern for those of us who represent constituencies involved with whisky is the protected geographical indication. The EU has protected geographical indication status, so people are not allowed to bottle whisky somewhere else and call it Scotch whisky. We are set to lose that protection when the UK leaves the EU, and it is important that the UK Government do what they can to ensure that the Scotch whisky industry can continue to trade and protect its brand—but I do not see that coming through. If the Government had not raised duty in this Budget on spirits and on whisky in particular, the industry would have known that it had the confidence of the UK Government and been in a much better position to take decisions.
Moving on to oil and gas, we have two new clauses on the amendment paper. New clauses 3 and 4 on behalf of the SNP are in my name, and I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig) for his input into them. New clause 3 is about investment allowances. This Tory Government have come up with a line that we are one of the most competitive fiscal regimes for oil and gas, which is all well and good, but we also have one of the most mature fields in the world. In the North sea and on the UK continental shelf, we are also having to do things and implement technologies we have never seen before. A huge amount of innovation from our companies is having to go on in order for them to be able to achieve the UK Government’s and Sir Ian Wood’s maximising economic recovery strategy.
New clause 3 is about investment allowances and corporation tax rates on companies producing oil and gas. The UK Government have put the tax up and put it down, but they have not at any stage sat down and looked at the entire taxation regime for the oil and gas industry and said, “We are operating in a new scenario.” They have kept the level of taxes that we have had since oil and gas began to be taken out of the North sea. It is time for the UK Government to look at that tax structure and those tax regimes to see how they can incentivise companies to ensure that they are getting the best out of the North sea and securing jobs in the north-east of Scotland, and beyond, for as long term a future as possible.
Jane Ellison
Clauses 71 to 107 contain provisions for a new tax called the soft drinks industry levy to be introduced from April 2018. This is a key pillar in the Government’s childhood obesity plan, and it has been welcomed by a wide range of public health experts and campaigners. Tackling obesity is a national challenge—indeed, an international challenge. The UK has one of the highest obesity rates in the developed world, and childhood obesity in particular is a major concern. Today nearly a third of children aged two to 15 are overweight or obese, and we know that many of these children will go on to become obese adults. Obesity drives disease, as we are reminded at the moment as we come through Westminster underground station by the Cancer Research UK posters. It increases the risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke, and some cancers. The NHS spends over £6 billion a year across the UK in dealing with obesity-related costs, and the overall costs to our economy are estimated at between £27 billion and £46 billion a year. This cannot go on.
Health experts have identified sugary drinks as one of the biggest contributors to childhood obesity and a source of empty calories. A 330 ml can of full-sugar cola typically contains nine teaspoons of sugar. Some popular drinks have as many as 13 teaspoons. This can be more than double a child’s daily recommended added sugar intake in just a single can of drink. The Government recognise that this is a problem, and so have many others, with over 60 public health organisations calling for a tax on sugary drinks and many thousands signing a petition in favour. I am delighted that this issue has also received a high level of cross-party support.
Indeed, some soft drinks producers had recognised that sugar levels in their drinks were a problem too, and had started to reduce the sugar content, move consumers towards diet and sugar-free variants, and reduce portion sizes for high-sugar beverages. Nevertheless, reducing the added sugar in soft drinks is now a public health priority, and this new levy is needed to speed up the process. It is specifically designed to encourage the industry to move faster. We gave the industry two years to make progress on this before the levy begins, and we can see that it is already working. Since the Government announced the levy last March, a number of major producers have accelerated their work to reformulate sugar out of their soft drinks and escape the charge. These include Tesco, which has already reformulated its whole range of own-brand soft drinks so that they will not pay the levy. Similar commitments have come from the makers of Lucozade and Ribena, and the maker of Irn-Bru, A. G. Barr. In fact, we now expect more than 40% of all drinks that would otherwise have been in scope to have been reformulated by the introduction of the levy. We see international action too. In recent months, countries such as Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Estonia and South Africa have brought forward similar proposals to our own.
As a result of such reformulation before the levy begins, we now expect the levy to raise around £385 million per year, which is less than the £520 million originally forecast—but we are clear that this is a success. The Government will still fund the Department for Education’s budget with the £1 billion that the levy was originally expected to raise over this Parliament, including money to double the primary schools sports premium and deliver additional funding for school breakfast clubs, and £415 million to be invested in a new healthy pupils capital programme. The devolved Administrations will receive Barnett funding in the usual way. The Secretary of State for Education has made recent announcements about how some of the money will be spent, particularly on the healthy pupils capital programme.
The levy has shown that the Government mean business when it comes to reducing hidden sugar in everyday food. That willingness to take bold action underpins another major part of our childhood obesity plan, namely Public Health England’s sugar reduction programme, which is a groundbreaking programme of work with industry to achieve 20% cuts in sugar by 2020 across the top nine food categories that contribute the most to children’s sugar intake. It has been acknowledged, not least by industry, that that is a challenging target, but one that industry is committed to working with Government to achieve. The sugar reduction programme will cover some of the drinks products that are not part of the levy, such as milk-based drinks. The programme is already bearing fruit: there have been announcements and commitments to reduce the levels of sugar in some of the products.
I know that some would like the levy to go further. In particular, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) has tabled amendments 2 and 3, which would remove the exclusion from the levy of high milk content drinks containing at least 75% milk. We oppose those amendments. Milk and milk products are a source of protein, calcium, potassium, phosphorous and iodine, as well as vitamins B2 and B12. One in five teenage girls do not get enough calcium in their diet, and the same is true for one in 10 teenage boys. It is essential for children’s health that they consume the required amount of those nutrients, which aid bone formation and promote healthy growth as part of a balanced diet. Health experts agree that the naturally occurring sugars in milk are not a concern from an obesity perspective, and they are not included in the definition of free sugars, which Public Health England now applies.
Of course, we want milk-based drinks to contain less added sugar, so they will be part of Public Health England’s sugar reduction programme. Producers of the drinks will be challenged and supported to reduce added sugar content by 20% by 2020. Public Health England has committed to publishing a detailed assessment of the food and drink industry’s progress against the 20% target in March 2020, and today I make a commitment to the House that we will also review the exclusion of milk-based drinks in 2020, based on the evidence from Public Health England’s assessment of producers’ progress against their sugar reduction targets. In the light of that assurance, I urge hon. Members to reject amendments 2 and 3, and allow us to review the evidence in 2020, two years after the levy has begun, and to decide at that point whether milk-based drinks should be brought within scope.
Obesity is a problem that has been decades in the making and we are not going to solve it overnight. The soft drinks levy is not a silver bullet, but it is an important part of the solution. This Government’s childhood obesity plan, with the levy as its flagship policy, is the start of a journey and it marks a major step towards dealing with our national obesity crisis.
Kirsty Blackman
The Minister is absolutely correct about the huge amount of cross-party support for the general thrust of the soft drinks industry levy and the move towards tackling obesity, particularly childhood obesity. However, we are concerned that the levy does not go far enough and that the Government could have chosen to close certain loopholes when drafting the Bill.
The single biggest cause of preventable cancer is obesity. More than 18,100 cancers a year are associated with excess weight. Cancer Research says that sugary drinks are the No. 1 source of sugar for 11 to 18-year-olds, which is a pretty terrifying statistic, and I appreciate that the Government have chosen to take action.
I am concerned about the Government’s response on milk-based drinks and about the fact that they are excluded from the levy.
Joanna Cherry
Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem with omitting high-sugar milk-based drinks from the provisions is that parents may mistakenly think that they are healthier than soft drinks that are subject to the extra tax, when that is simply not the case?
Kirsty Blackman
My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. It is true, as the Minister has said, that milk-based drinks contain protein, calcium and other nutrients, but so does milk. Children could just drink milk without the added sugar. I do not think people realise quite how much added sugar there is in such products. The same is true of pasta sauce. When parents see a milkshake on the shelf, they do not realise that it could have as much sugar in it as a can of fizzy juice.
Jane Ellison
These are consequential amendments and I want to move them formally.
Kirsty Blackman
I appreciate the Government withdrawing the making tax digital provisions. I understand their commitment to making tax digital, but the changes are reasonable.
George Kerevan
With your indulgence, Sir David, I thought that this might be an appropriate moment to pay tribute to the outgoing right hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), the Chair of the Treasury Committee, which has paid a lot of attention to making tax digital. There could be no more fitting tribute to the right hon. Gentleman leaving this House than the Government withdrawing the making tax digital provisions.
Kirsty Blackman
Like this one, the debates today have tended to be fairly quiet, with not many of us speaking.
I echo the comments that have been made about the right hon. Members for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) and for Oxford East (Mr Smith) and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris), with whom I had the pleasure of serving on the Finance Bill Committee last year. I was constantly impressed by his incredible knowledge about all the matters we discussed. I will be sorry to see him go from this place.
I have a few matters to raise on Third Reading. We have had a greatly curtailed debate on the Finance (No. 2) Bill this year. Obviously, we will see a new Finance Bill in the next Session, but this Bill has been one of the most bizarre things I have been part of since I was elected. Last Tuesday, we had Second Reading. On Tuesday morning, everything was going to proceed as normal with the Finance Bill. We were going to have two days of Committee of the whole House, something like six Public Bill Committee sittings and two days for Report stage and Third Reading. As it is, it has all been squidged into three hours or so, with the opportunity for it to last for five hours. It has been totally bizarre.
I appreciated receiving the Government’s notification that they would withdraw some things last night, but that was very little notice to allow us to go through all these matters properly and to work out exactly what the Government had and had not decided to proceed with. It has been difficult to operate under these circumstances and to provide the appropriate scrutiny, given the lack of time. The SNP has done its best. We have spoken on every group today and were the only party, other than the Government, to table amendments to the Bill. We have gone out of our way to provide scrutiny.
Before I talk about the provisions of the Bill, I want briefly to mention the way in which the Government tackle budgetary scrutiny, the way in which the Standing Orders are drafted and the way in which this House considers financial matters. In the past, I have raised at length the shortcomings of the estimates process. The Budget process is marginally better, but still not great.
I have mentioned a number of times the “Better Budgets” report. I absolutely back the call by the organisations that wrote that report for the Finance Public Bill Committee to have public hearings. It is really important for this House to do that. I would very much like whatever Government come in after 8 June to change the Standing Orders to allow hearings in the Public Bill Committee stage of the Finance Bill. That would make a really big difference to the level of scrutiny we are able to provide. I have heard the argument that the Treasury Committee hears evidence from members of the public. However, different individuals sit on the Treasury Committee and the Finance Bill Committee. I will keep making this call—the Minister knows that once I start bringing something up, I am not very good at letting it go—until the Government change the Standing Orders. I recognise that they were not put in place by this Government.
On the provisions of the Bill, I welcome the Government’s withdrawal of certain measures. I note the Government’s position on making tax digital, but I welcome their recognition that it is a contentious matter and that it would be better to bring it back following the general election. I welcome the withdrawal of the changes to the dividend threshold. We did not feel we had adequate time to scrutinise those changes and I appreciate the Government taking that measure out of the Bill.
We are less supportive of some matters that have made it to Third Reading. We still feel that the Government can do more on tax evasion. New clause 1 on tax evasion, which we tabled for debate today, asked the Government to look at international comparators and to bring back a full report on all the ways in which international comparators are successful in tackling tax evasion. I get that piecemeal work has been done on this, but a full report would be incredibly helpful for the UK Government to ensure that the right decisions are taken to tackle tax evasion.
We are clear that there is still not enough protection for whistleblowers. We are very indebted to individuals who come forward and we would like to encourage them to continue to do so. Anything the Government can do on that would therefore be welcome.
On self-employment, last year’s Finance Bill made some changes for those employed through intermediaries and this year’s Finance Bill does the same. The Chancellor proposed changes to national insurance, but then rowed back on them. Those, however, are all piecemeal changes. If the Government want to make changes, they need to do them properly by looking at everything that affects the taxation of self-employed individuals. They also need to look at tax credits, so that self-employed individuals are supported through childcare vouchers and so on. Everything needs to be taken in the round, in addition to pension entitlement, holiday entitlement and maternity leave entitlement. A proper tax system needs to be put in place to tax self-employed individuals appropriately and provide them with appropriate benefits to encourage them to aspire and to leave employment—or leave unemployment—to begin their own businesses. The more we do that, and the less we shift the goalposts, the better situation we will be in.
The UK Government could do more to give confidence to the oil and gas industry. I would very much like them to look at changes to the tax regime on small pools. They have said they are committed to backing the maximising economic recovery strategy put in place by Sir Ian Wood. However, they have not followed up on that with enough measures. I do not feel that oil and gas has been given the priority it should be given. Oil and gas is incredibly important to the UK’s economy as a whole, as well as to the economy of Scotland. It supports a huge number of jobs in our communities, even though there has been a massive reduction in the number of those jobs in recent years.
I am not asking for the Government to significantly reduce the rates of tax for oil and gas; I am asking them to look at incentivising investment and to look at those more difficult to reach pools. I am not asking for massive tax giveaways. In fact, incentives for investing in small pools would be a net benefit for the Government—it would not cost them anything. I am not asking for an amazing massive reduction in headline rates of tax; I am asking the Government to listen to companies that are coming forward and asking for small and reasonable changes, some of which will increase, not decrease, the UK Government’s tax take. I therefore ask the Government to consider the amendments we have tabled and the suggestions we are making.
I appreciate the changes—they are long overdue—the UK Government hope to make in relation to late life assets. The sooner the commission can report and the change can be implemented the better. I would really appreciate that coming forward quickly.
Regardless of which Government are elected, we will have a new Budget and a new Finance Bill. We have not seen from this Government in any discussion of finances, nearly a year on from the Brexit referendum, an acceptance of the effects Brexit will have on the UK Government’s budget and tax take, on employment levels, on our constituents’ jobs, on what businesses will come in and on the level of investment that will be coming in. Nearly a year on, we have not seen any recognition of any of that. I hope that in the next Parliament, the new Government will recognise the financial impact of Brexit on household budgets and jobs. I hope we see real changes that take into account the effects of Brexit.