Finance Bill
Kirsty Blackman Excerpts(7 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
I know that when I mention the word “investor” in this House, some Opposition Members get a little a bit excited: their pupils dilate, their pulses quicken and their minds race with images of plutocrats rolling the dice of financial speculation. The reality, however, is a little different. I have spent my own career investing in businesses, and in this country private equity-backed businesses now account for almost 1 million people in employment. The latest research shows that in the run-up to the last crisis, those companies’ sales, investment in research and development, and, indeed, exports grew at a faster rate than the national average.
Furthermore, I am sure that everyone in the House would welcome more money for charities, more research funds for scientists, more scholarships for students who need them and lower insurance premiums, and that is indeed what the private equity industry delivers. The funds that private equity companies manage benefit all of us through university endowments, charitable foundations, pension funds and the floats of insurance companies. When the private equity industry does well, the pensioner, the scientific researcher and the scholar from a disadvantaged background all benefit.
This is a Finance Bill from a Government who value their investors and will not demonise an industry, and who know that no contribution, however great, should be allowed to skew the scales of social justice. The clauses that involve changes to carried interest will ensure that the rewards that investment managers receive for their efforts are taxed not only correctly, but fairly. The clauses will introduce a 40-month holding period to ensure that capital gains tax treatment is reserved for genuinely long-term investments, as it should be. I know that Members on both sides of the House support the welcome change to remove the base cost shift loophole, which allowed costs to be advantageously offset against gains. The Bill will also consolidate Government action on disguised fee income that was introduced in the last Finance Bill and ensure that fund managers are paying income tax when appropriate. All in all, the measures will raise in the order of £200 million in the next financial year.
Those new arrangements are not only fair for British taxpayers and society; they will also ensure that we remain competitive internationally. Our general treatment of carried interest, which has been the subject of much debate in this House and various Committees, is actually in line with the treatment carried out in the United States, Germany, Australia and France. All those countries agree with the notion that carried interest is capital in nature and should be treated as such. If we look across Europe, we will see that our rate for carried interest will sit in the middle of those for comparable countries: it will be a little bit above that in Switzerland and Germany, and a little bit below that in France.
The clauses reflecting changes to capital gains tax will ensure that the UK remains a pro-enterprise, pro-growth nation. Small and medium-sized businesses of the kinds that I used to invest in account for more than half of private sector employment in the UK. They are responsible for three quarters of all jobs created since 2008, yet I know from first hand that small and medium-sized British enterprises still struggle to attract enough equity capital to grow. Adjusted for GDP, the size of the UK’s venture capital market is a seventh of that of the United States. Just 3% of British companies manage to expand from three employees up to 10, which is half the rate in America.
When I hear about changes to capital gains tax rates, I think about how they will benefit all those small businesses, helping them get the capital they need to grow and to increase investment and employment. Indeed, investors’ relief and the other changes to capital gains tax included in the Bill will build on the success of the seed enterprise investment scheme, the enterprise investment scheme, the funding for lending scheme and the British Business Bank, all of which are providing British companies with the capital that is necessary for growth.
The changes will ensure that Britain remains a competitive prospect for investment without compromising Government revenue. The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) mentioned the state of our finances and the need for revenue. I am sure that she welcomes the fact that the Office for Budget Responsibility projects that capital gains receipts will top £7 billion this year and increase to £9 billion next year, which is higher than in any other year in the past decade and a half. Rather than being a sweet deal for the rich, our capital gains tax rate actually sits in the middle of the OECD league tables of capital gains tax rates. Ten countries have rates of 0%, and our rate of 20% will sit two points above the average.
As we contemplate leaving the European Union, it will be vital that Britain’s economy remains dynamic, open and competitive to attract the investment we need and maximise the opportunities afforded to us. The clauses relating to capital gains tax and carried interest will ensure that the UK does exactly that, and I will support them later today.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I want to speak to the Labour party’s new clause 14 and amendment 174, which, as has been ably pointed out by the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), would remove clause 82 and the increased nil-rate band for inheritance tax.
I will focus first on the entrepreneurs’ relief proposed by new clause 14, which makes a key point about the lack of Government transparency. When UK Governments of all colours introduce a tax change, they often do not return with the evidence to show that the policy has worked. They will implement the policy and say that it is wonderful, but they will not bring back the proof. The Minister was asked yesterday how many companies have benefited from the loan guarantee fund in relation to oil and gas, but she was unable to provide a detailed answer. I do not know whether she just did not have the answer at her fingertips or whether the Government have not actually sat down and worked it out. If Governments are going to make grand claims about what they are doing and how good their policies are, they really need to bring back their work and show it to us.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
It is important, particularly in relation to entrepreneurial relief, to point out that the last thing we want is an economy where there are quick-fire gains. One of the criticisms of the tax treatment in the area of private equity and venture capital is that there have been too many incentives for people to sell out too quickly.
The corollary of that surely must be that if an entrepreneurs’ relief is designed to encourage entrepreneurs to hang on to their businesses in the longer term, it is difficult for the Treasury to bring back, in a shortish period of time, figures that suggest that a scheme has been a success. We have to look at the general tenor of an economy such as the UK. To that extent, I think that positive changes are being proposed, but I do not think that it is realistic or fair to expect the Treasury to come back in double-quick time and say, “This has been a great success.”
Kirsty Blackman
To be fair, the new clause does not ask the Treasury to come back in such a short time; it asks for a six-month review period. Instead of just saying that they will not do a review, the Government could quite easily say, “We will do a review, but we will do it in 18 months.” I would find that acceptable. I would like to see how the schemes are working. I am not necessarily saying that any of them are particularly bad, but the Government need to come back with their workings and tell us how those things are performing.
The UK tax system is incredibly, massively complicated, and there are tax reliefs and taxes for all sorts of things. I am not convinced that the majority of them are working as they were intended to, particularly those put in place 20 or 25 years ago. The whole thing needs looking at, and considering individual things is a sensible place to start. The new clause is about Government transparency, and anything we can to do increase Government transparency around tax reliefs, in particular, is great. It would be very good if the Government considered this for some point in the future, even if not exactly in the terms suggested.
The other thing I want to talk about is inheritance tax. The Conservative manifesto said that the party intended to
“take the family home out of tax for all but the richest”.
As I mentioned in Committee, I have a real issue with regarding £1 million homes, or homes that are worth close to £1 million, as normal family homes and not the preserve of the very richest. In Scotland, the average sale price in 2015 for a detached house was £238,000. In Edinburgh, which is at the higher end of the market in terms of price, the detached average sale price was £382,778. Those are detached homes—not family homes, necessarily—so they are specifically at the higher end of the market. In the most expensive place in Scotland to buy, we are looking at homes costing £382,778.
I have been looking at what someone could get for £1 million. In Orkney—fair enough, it is probably not the best example—they could get a six-bedroom home with an attached three-bedroom lodge and a guest wing for less than £1 million. Nobody would call that a normal family home. In Ayr, they could get a 10-bedroom detached category B listed mansion for less than £1 million. Also in Ayr, they could get a six-bedroom home, which seems relatively modest, in these terms, with a swimming pool for under £1 million. None of those could be classed as normal family homes. They are, in the main, homes that have been inherited—[Interruption.] Very few people will have just picked up these homes.
The other thing that the Conservatives said in their manifesto was, essentially, “You have worked hard for your money; we would like you to keep it.” The vast majority of the homes in question will not be first-generation owned. They will have been sold by the second or third generation because they have been owned by the family for a long time. They are not, by any stretch of the imagination, normal family homes. Even in the centre of Edinburgh someone could manage to get an eight-bedroom, detached, very large house for £1 million, and that is the most expensive place in Scotland to buy a home.
The problem—this applies to a huge amount of the Conservative manifesto—is that the Conservatives think that what happens in the south-east of England is normal for the rest of the UK. It is not normal for the rest of the UK. I know that the south-east is where the majority of the population are based, but some thought needs to be given to this. Members will expect me to say this as a Scottish National party politician who supports independence, but if decisions were made closer to home, they would be more appropriate for people in Scotland.
Mark Field
I appreciate that my constituency is hardly typical as far as these matters are concerned —nor, indeed, is the Minister’s constituency on the other side of the river—but the logic of what the hon. Lady is saying is that we should move towards a regionalised tax system. I guess that she would quite like it to be a nationalised system, with the nation beginning on the other side of Hadrian’s Wall, but does she not recognise that the Barnett formula gives particular incentives to the nations of the United Kingdom, rather than to London and the south-east? I can understand the irritation that she feels about the fact that perhaps too much thinking is done for London and the south-east, but £1 million buys virtually nothing not only in my constituency but in many of the 73 constituencies in London, as well as those in the home counties. Short of regionalising our tax system, surely this is, at least, a sensible step forward to ensuring that those who have been able to bring up a family in a home are not forced to sell the home when a relative dies.
Kirsty Blackman
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Perhaps we need to think about having differential policies across the UK, and possibly further devolution. That would be fantastic, and if he wants to support us in that cause, he is welcome to join us at any time.
This policy highlights a major difference between the south-east of England and the rest of the UK. The problem with Government being so far from people who are outside London is that policies are made for the benefit of the majority of the population—the people who live around here. That is really unfortunate for people in the north of England and in Wales, because the policies made by the national Government do not make sense for us.
Kirsty Blackman
I will not take another intervention; I am sorry. I just want to mention briefly the Prime Minister’s statement that she will take “bold action” on tax. We have a big problem—we will still have a big problem after the changes that will be made by the Finance Bill, including the tax changes that we discussed yesterday—with the lack of parity and fairness in tax. Nurses, carers and people who work in all sorts of professions pay 20% tax. I acknowledge that the personal allowance has been raised, and that is very much appreciated, but those people pay the tax that is due on the majority of their income.
There are still too many loopholes in the rest of the system. I understand the point that was made about carried interest, and we need to see how that works going forward. I would love to see the Government’s working on that, and whether the policy has the effects that the Government intend. However, unearned income is still taxed at different rates from earned income. I understand the point that was made about private equity supporting our economy and supporting some of our community organisations, for example. However, the people in question are not paying the level of tax that they should be paying to the Government, so the Government do not have the funds to disburse that they should have to disburse.
We need to do something a bit more radical than tinkering around the edges. We need to look at making changes that actually bring about parity. We need to look at ensuring that the people who are making the megabucks in the City of London pay at least as much tax, and as high a percentage of tax, as our nurses and carers pay.
Mark Field
I will speak briefly in favour of amendment 151 on carried interest. In my time as a Member of Parliament, I have sometimes been critical of elements of the tax regime that applies in the private equity and venture capital world. It seems to me that the generous tax regime, although it has been justified to support entrepreneurs, has often been misused by those in the industry—inadvertently; I am not suggesting that anything untoward or nefarious has taken place. I believe that many in the private equity field have, particularly in good times, in effect been financiers rather than risk takers. As such, it would surely be more equitable for their rewards to be treated more like income than capital gains. That has been at the heart of the whole debate about carried interest.
The Government have been aware of this issue. Let us give them some credit for that. To some extent, we are trying to play catch-up on it. Inevitably, there has been controversy about the treatment of private equity firms’ carried interest, which is levied as a capital gain, rather than as income. There was a time—pre-2010—when the difference between those two things was rather greater than it is today. That may be because capital gains tax has been raised, but the starkness of the problem is to some extent less pronounced now than it was during the time of the last Labour Administration in the noughties.
It is clear that the Treasury is doing the right thing in trying to provide a more favourable regime that is intended to reward genuine entrepreneurs. In principle, that must mean that where carried interest looks like income, it should be treated as such for taxation purposes. That is what we are slowly doing with amendment 151.
Jane Ellison
As a number of Ministers have made clear in the House, we need to consider a huge range of issues as we proceed, but, as I have said, we are clear about the matter for the present. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will raise his point again during debates about our future outside the European Union.
New clause 16, tabled by Liberal Democrat Members, would require the Government to publish a review. I do not think that any Liberal Democrat Members are present, so I shall speak briefly before moving on swiftly to deal with new clauses and amendments tabled by members of other parties who are present.
The Government already undertake equality assessments of all new measures, which includes considering age as a protected characteristic. I am sure the whole House welcomes the fact that the Prime Minister has now launched an unprecedented audit of public services to reveal—among other things—racial disparities, and to look at the way in which public services serve people throughout the country. The Treasury will, of course, play its part in the audit, and no doubt some of these issues can be considered as part of that important exercise.
New clause 19 would require the Government to review the impact of measures in the Bill on different levels of income. In every Budget and autumn statement since 2010, the Treasury has published distributional analyses showing the impact of Government policy on the share of tax paid and spending received across household income distribution. Since 2010, the Government have published far more distributional analyses than their predecessors. As the Prime Minister has made clear on many occasions since taking office, we are determined to make Britain a country that works for everyone, and our policy choices and actions stand as proof of our commitment. The Government have received representations on this matter, not just from Opposition Members but from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester, on behalf of his Committee. We will consider the appropriate format of documents to be published at future fiscal events at a time closer to the date of the autumn statement.
Kirsty Blackman
In the absence of the Government showing any willingness to take the bull by the horns on tax simplification, how can we get them to part with the information that they say they have on the continual review on tax reliefs? I have not been an MP for very long, but it strikes me that there is a failure in the system if we are not seeing the transparency that we need. If the Government are actually doing these reviews but not providing their working to the Committees or to Opposition MPs, that strikes me as a failure in the system. How can we get them to part with that information?
Rob Marris
I quite agree with the hon. Lady. Sadly, I am unlikely ever to be a Minister, but I am hoping that the Minister will stand up this afternoon and say, “The hon. Member for Aberdeen North has made a jolly good point.” She has said that the Government keep all policies under review all the time, so let us have the transparency. I salute what the Government did for transparency yesterday in accepting amendment 145, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). I urge them to go that bit further today by publishing the evidence that they have and by marshalling more evidence and disclosing it. They must have the courage to seriously go for simplification, which would be better for business and employment in this country, even though there would be a cost to be borne by society in the form of less nuanced decision making and systems becoming more monochromatic and rough and ready. Some of that would of course rebound on Members of the House, because we would get constituents writing to us saying, “I have a particularly nuanced situation here, and you guys have made all these laws that are a bit monochromatic and do not help me.” We have to have the guts to say that that is a price worth paying, and as legislators we should be prepared to do so.
Kirsty Blackman
On that point, and particularly on the point about whether parents choose to stay at home or to work, despite the measure that has been put in, I support anything that allows parents to have a choice, or more of a choice, over whether they stay at home to look after their children or put them in childcare. However, we still have a massive problem with families not being able to make those choices, because childcare is not affordable for them, particularly for those caring for under-fives. Parents are still forced into being stay-at-home parents or taking low-wage jobs at strange hours because of the lack of affordable childcare. Does the hon. Gentleman support measures to change the childcare regime as well as the tax regime relating to this issue?
Mr Burrowes
The hon. Lady tempts me into a wider debate. If the Minister were to respond on this, she would certainly point to the measures on childcare. When one looks at supporting couples with young children, there are other things the Government have been very much involved in to improve the offer. There is work to do on access and affordability, not least, in my constituency, in relation to poor households accessing childcare.
I appreciate the fact that the hon. Lady talked about choice. There is also an issue about choice in that the Government are rightly encouraging as many people as possible to work and to exercise that choice, but it is sometimes an invidious choice for those who would want to stay at home, and the fiscal incentive to do that is not currently there.
There is a huge impact generally across the tax system on single-earner couples, which is not getting sufficient attention, and this proposal for the transferable allowance addresses that. There are lots of other measures across the tax and benefits system that seek to focus support on children, but we must particularly support the benefits of this allowance, which is around couples, marriage and the commitment to marriage and civil partnership.
In conclusion, following the cause of new clause 3 can be a win-win situation for the Government. It not only, obviously, recognises what we do already on marriage in the tax system, but it allows us to get the maximum effect from the Government’s original commitment, which I believe was welcome, but which was somewhat partial in terms of its original intentions. Recognising the financial challenges, I think new clause 3 would ensure that we can seek to remove some of the disincentives to marriage for those who wish to marry; it would help us to support social resilience and help with transferability; and it is also fiscally conservative. In short, new clause 3 is about getting more bang for our buck in supporting marriage and social justice.
Kirsty Blackman
The Finance Bill was devised prior to the vote to leave the European Union. The measure under discussion will have a disproportionate effect on microbusinesses, so does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should accept our new clause and review the measure in the light of Brexit?
Philip Boswell
I must admit that I have sympathy with all who have reservations about any position taken in this Bill, given that, as my hon. Friend has said, it seeks to implement measures devised prior to the EU vote and therefore fails to provide for an economy that faces the harsh reality of Brexit. I am sure that we all look forward to the autumn or winter statement—whenever it will be—and the redress it will contain, imaginary or otherwise. We will then see, I presume, whether the new Chancellor is as good with imaginary numbers as the previous one was not.
The Federation of Small Businesses has raised serious concerns. It has highlighted that the changes are particularly acute for members of organisations who are on modest incomes. It has further submitted extensive evidence regarding member feedback on the proposed changes. A number of responses have highlighted concerns from the owners of small and microbusinesses that the changes may mean that they will not be able to continue to employ their small workforces.
In addition, evidence was submitted to the Committee by Jason Kitcat of Crunch Accounting, who has produced excellent work on the matter. I acknowledge that Mr Kitcat has been referenced several times in discussions about the proposed changes, but his analysis is significant and, as such, ought to be raised again. Crunch Accounting has highlighted how the changes as proposed hit lower-earning microbusinesses the hardest. The Government have stated that the changes in dividend income will be offset by planned future changes both to the way in which Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs treats corporations and to personal allowances. However, Crunch has highlighted how those anticipated changes will not fully offset the impact of changes to HMRC’s treatment of dividend income for microbusinesses, as proposed by the Bill. In addition, Crunch has highlighted how measures cited by Ministers, such as changes to employment allowances and the annual investment allowance, are rarely available to microbusinesses, as they have little capital investment requirements.
I stress that the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises to the Scottish and UK economy cannot be overstated. There are few things on which I agree with the Prime Minister, but I do agree with her statement last month that
“small and medium sized businesses are the backbone of our country.”
I further welcome her indication in the same speech that she intends to listen to smaller firms. However, I am concerned that, despite that profession from the Prime Minister, the regressive changes to dividend income will not only disincentivise new SMEs from forming, but have the potential to cause existing microbusinesses to fail.
It is essential to note the number of SMEs that are categorised as microbusinesses. The UK is home to 5.2 million microbusinesses, which employ 8.4 million people. In Scotland, microbusinesses play an essential role in the economy. According to recent Scottish Government statistics, 99% of businesses in Scotland are categorised as SMEs, the vast majority of which are microbusinesses. Overall, microbusinesses comprise 81.5% of the businesses in Scotland. The figures are similar for the UK as a whole. According to House of Commons Library research in late 2015, 99% of businesses UK-wide are categorised as SMEs, 95% of which are microbusinesses.
Microbusinesses are essential and central to the functioning of both local and national economies. Given that microbusinesses make up the vast majority of businesses in Scotland and UK-wide, I find it absolutely staggering that HMRC does not make an assessment of microbusinesses as a separate group. Given the prevalence of microbusinesses throughout the economy, it does not seem on this matter as though the Government have listened to the concerns of smaller firms, despite last month’s proclamations from the Prime Minister.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) introduced the original SNP amendment regarding the proposed changes to the way in which HMRC treats dividend income, the response he received to his concerns about microbusinesses was that
“the Government have considered the general economic impact of the changes…the measure is not expected to have any significant macroeconomic impacts.”––[Official Report, Finance Bill Public Bill Committee, 30 June 2016; c. 18.]
This statement taken alone is staggering, given that, as I have stated, 94% of businesses in the UK are categorised as microbusinesses. I fail to see how introducing a change that principally impacts microbusinesses would not be expected to have any significant macroeconomic impact.
The Minister stated in her introductory remarks that we do not yet know the impact of such legislation. I would like to highlight oral evidence given to a Committee of the other place on 8 February 2016 by Cerys MacDonald, the deputy director of personal tax at HMRC. When asked by the Chairman about the impact of these changes on microbusinesses, Ms MacDonald stated:
“I can assure the Committee that we recognise that the dividend tax changes will mean that a lot of people in owner-managed businesses are now paying a higher level of tax than previously, despite the benefit that they will see in the reduction of the corporate tax rate.”
Those two statements seem to me to be at variance with each other. Do the Government believe, as indicated by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that the proposed changes to dividend income will not significantly impact on microbusinesses? Or do they believe, as indicated by Ms MacDonald of HMRC, that the changes will impact on owner-managed businesses, despite the planned future change to the corporate rate?
Given the uncertainty surrounding the inconsistent responses from Government, coupled with substantial evidence from the Federation of Small Businesses, Crunch Accounting and others, it seems as though the Government have not fully and comprehensively considered the impact of the proposed changes on small and microbusinesses—the backbone of our economy, as I am sure we all agree.
New clause 8 would require the Government to conduct a review of the impact of the changes on microbusinesses, including the impact on the failure rate of microbusinesses and the options for minimising the impact of the changes on directors who are on low incomes. I therefore advise hon. Members that we will press new clause 8 to a Division.
Finance Bill
Kirsty Blackman Excerpts(7 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 10—Review of the operation of the Patent Box—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay an independent report of the value for money provided by, and the efficacy of, the Patent Box legislation before both Houses of Parliament.
(2) The report shall—
(a) assess the size and nature of the companies taking advantage of the Patent Box legislation;
(b) assess the impact of the Patent Box legislation on research and innovation in the UK, including supporting evidence; and
(c) assess the cost effectiveness of the Patent Box legislation in incentivising research and development compared to other policy options.”
New clause 11—Assessment of taxation regime for securitisation companies—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, commission an independent assessment of the efficacy of the taxation regime to which securitisation companies are subject and lay the assessment before both Houses of Parliament.”
Amendment 177, page 87, line 6, leave out clause 44.
Amendment 162, page 87, line 8, ‘leave out clause 45.
Government amendments 152, 153, 1 to 29, 154, 31, 155, 33 to 59, 156, 61 to 113, 157, 115 to 117, 158, 159, 119 to 128, 160, 129 to 131.
Kirsty Blackman
I rise to speak to new clause 5, which is in my name and the names of my hon. Friends, but I wish briefly to mention amendment 162, which has been proposed by the Labour party. I look forward to hearing from its Front-Bench Members. If they intend to push the amendment to a vote, we will join them in the Lobby.
New clause 5 is about the corporation tax treatment of the oil and gas industry. The House will not be surprised to hear me speaking on this subject as I have done so a number of times. What we want is a comprehensive review of the corporation tax rates and investment tax allowances applicable to companies producing oil and gas in the UK, or on the UK continental shelf. This is a timeous ask from us for a number of reasons. For a start, this Bill implements measures that were put in place and discussed first in February and March, before the EU vote, and there have not been any substantive changes by the Government to the Bill as a result of the Brexit vote.
Substantive changes to the Bill are needed because we find ourselves in a completely different situation as a result of the fall-out from Brexit. It is unfortunate that changes have not been made and that there have not been more announcements from the Government about how they intend to manage the financial situation going forward. We want to know about the impact on Aberdeen, which I represent, and on the UK’s tax take and the Treasury. It is important that we seriously consider making changes to the Bill.
We have repeatedly asked for changes to the tax rates and for a comprehensive strategic review. We appreciate that the Government made changes earlier this year, but we do not think they go far enough. Alex Kemp, a renowned petroleum economist, and his long-term research partner, Linda Stephen, are both at Aberdeen University, where they have been working on sophisticated modelling tools. If the Minister has not read the article that appears in Energy Voice today, it is worth reading, together with the report that accompanies it. The work that they have done suggests that corporation tax of 30% is too high, and it is far above the non-North sea rate. They said:
“From the analysis of the economics of new field investments and exploration in current circumstances in the UKCS it is clear that, at $50 and $60 prices, there are many ‘marginal project investment situations’.”
That is key. It is what we have been arguing, and now it is backed up by renowned experts.
The position in which the industry finds itself bears repeating. Estimates vary, but we have lost around 125,000 jobs—from 425,000 we are down to about 300,000. That implies a huge reduction in the tax take for the Treasury and it is a massive hit for the local area, particularly Aberdeen and across Scotland and other oil and gas-producing areas. Because of the reduction in the oil price, we have seen changes in the behaviour of companies. As well as making people redundant, they have changed shift patterns and terms and conditions. They have also managed to reduce production costs, which is a good thing.
Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Brexit casts further uncertainty over the oil and gas industry, which under this Conservative Government has seen the legislative goalposts moved almost continuously, thereby hindering vital investment. Does my hon. Friend agree that given that the Bill implements measures devised prior to the EU vote and, as such, fails to provide for an economy that is facing the harsh reality of Brexit, more must be done to mitigate investor uncertainty in the oil and gas sector?
Kirsty Blackman
Indeed. Brexit compounds the issues that we have seen in the oil and gas industry, particularly in the North sea, and affects investment. This year we are expecting less than £1 billion-worth of new capital projects to be agreed. In each of the past five years we have seen an average spend of £8 billion. There has been a massive drop-off. Much of that is linked to the global oil price, but the Government have not done enough to increase investor confidence, especially in the light of Brexit. New projects are not being sanctioned because of companies’ negative cash flow. Jobs are consequently being lost all the way along the supply chain. We are losing contracts, expertise and people working in the industry in and around Aberdeen, Scotland and the UK.
Exploration and development activity is at an all-time low. Oil and Gas UK produced a report in February this year which predicted that if the current trajectory of low investment and new projects not being approved continues, we will see a fall in production in 2020. We are not ready for that. Our strategy has been to maximise income and recovery, and the Oil and Gas Authority’s main aim is to ensure that we get as much out of the North sea as we can. Because of the lack of investor confidence and the inability to sanction new capital projects, that is becoming increasingly difficult.
I have asked various Ministers about the Government’s intentions. We are not seeing investor confidence. We are seeing a major drop-off in investment, as the figures show. I welcome some of the changes that the Oil and Gas Authority has made. It is working on making it easier to transfer assets that have reached the end of their life. We do not want decommissioning to take place now. I understand entirely that if there is sufficient UK spend, there will be a financial benefit to UK companies from decommissioning, as long as we can ensure that the supply chain for decommissioning is based in the UK.
However, some of the assets that have been in the North sea for 30 years are at the end of their useful life and need to be decommissioned. I welcome the OGA’s push to ensure that as much of that spend as possible is in the UK, and I welcome its efforts to ensure that assets can be transferred so that as much oil as possible can be recovered from each of those fields. The OGA has been focusing on enhanced oil recovery, but the Government have not done enough in that respect. Changes are necessary to the tax regime to encourage companies to undertake enhanced oil recovery.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
I hear the hon. Lady standing up doughtily for her constituency and for the oil and gas industry in Scotland. What bemuses me is that if the independence vote had gone through, in spring 2016, Scotland would have had income of £100 billion and expenditure of £120 billion— a structural deficit of 20%. Now the hon. Lady is advocating increasing that black hole. How would she bridge that gap?
Kirsty Blackman
We are under a Westminster Government; we do not have full control of our own economy. That is a damning indictment of the way that the Westminster Government are running the economy of Scotland. It is incredibly important that we get independence and that we are therefore able to make decisions, particularly in the oil and gas industry, where the Government have not moved quickly enough or been flexible enough in the changes they have made. It is important that we make the decisions and grow our economy, because the Westminster Government are failing to do so.
On the future for energy and for the North sea, Statoil produced a report entitled “Energy Perspectives”. It is important to consider the future for the North sea and the UK continental shelf in that context. Statoil predicts that up to 2040, total primary energy demand will grow between 5% and 35%. That is a wide range because a number of different scenarios have been analysed. In all scenarios there is an increase in total energy demand. Statoil predicts that energy demand in 2040 will be between 78 million barrels a day and 116 million barrels a day. We currently use over 90 million barrels a day. It is important to note that as we think about the move towards renewables and different forms of energy generation, but by 2040, even if we have a huge number of renewables, we will still see a massive demand for oil and gas across the world. Oil and gas will still need to be produced in order to support the economies of the world. It is vital that we ensure that the UK continues to be involved in that and to benefit financially from it.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
On that point, is my hon. Friend aware that more than half of the oil supply and support companies in the UK are located in England, and that the amendment affects all oil companies across the UK, not just in Scotland?
Kirsty Blackman
I appreciate that point. I was not aware of the numbers. However, from talking to colleagues across the House who have been very supportive of companies and industries in their constituencies, it is clear that the number of companies is substantial. We are discussing UK spend and, whether we like it or not, we are part of the UK, and the tax changes will help all the companies in the oil and gas industry throughout the UK, whether they are in Aberdeen, Wales or the south of England.
The Oil and Gas Authority has been very good at talking positively about UK supply chain spend, which is one of the most vital aspects. Although I have talked about energy demand and oil and gas demand out to 2040, we will see, at some point, a reduction in the amount of oil and gas being produced by the UK. It is key to note that we are world leaders in terms of our oil and gas expertise. We are very good at what we do, and we are respected across the world. In sub-sea technology, for example, we are 20 years ahead of America. America has not done very much when it comes to Gulf of Mexico extraction. We will be there teaching the Americans how to use sub-sea technology and exporting that technology to them. Even when the oil and gas in the UK eventually run out, we will see that our expertise is able to be exported. It is really important that the Government act now to ensure that we keep that expertise base and do not lose it in the current downturn.
Kirsty Blackman
The hon. Gentleman should listen to what I said. Statoil’s “Energy Perspectives” report reckons that even if we have a huge push towards renewable technologies and towards reducing carbon emissions, we will still need between 78 million and 116 million barrels of oil a day—and that is while taking on board, and increasing, the very best of these technologies. We will still continue to need, for example, road surfaces that are made from heavy oil. We will still continue to need these things, so we will always need oil, or at least for a long way into the future until we come up with credible alternatives. It is not just about energy or about electricity generation; it is about all the different things that we use oil for, including plastics.
It is very important to make sure that we have a great future in exporting. I have never been to Houston, but I am told that one cannot go there without hearing an Aberdeen accent. That is because we have the links and we send our experts over there, and those experts are making money for companies here by whom they are still employed. They are devising the technology that is being spent on and used in America and in other places across the world. In the North sea, we are operating in a super-mature field. This is one of the first fields in the world that is reaching that super-mature status. We have a proud history of exporting, getting incredibly good at what we do and teaching the rest of the world how to do it.
We also have a proud history of being respected around the world. Our oil and gas industry is respected throughout the world. If you say to somebody in an oil company in a different country, “This technology is used in the UKCS in the North sea”, it is automatically seen as a gold standard that is recognised around the world. In order for us to continue to generate tax revenues from this and to sustain jobs, we need to make sure that our companies have enough cash to innovate. Although the Government have been vaguely supportive in what they have done, they have not been supportive enough. Companies are still struggling to get venture capital and assistance from banks. I am aware that Ministers have spoken to banks, but it is still not enough. The confidence is still not there to the degree that we need it to be.
As I said, we are one of the first countries operating in this super-mature situation. What we really need now is a review of the taxes across the oil and gas industry. The system was devised many years ago in a totally different situation. It has had bits lumped on and bits lopped off, but it has never been looked at as a whole, and that is what we need to do now. I strongly urge the Minister to have a look at the entire tax regime for the oil and gas industry so that it can have a better future.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) will be glad to know that she can also come to my constituency and hear a few Aberdonian accents from time to time, without having to go out to the middle of Texas.
I have a lot of sympathy for the situation that the hon. Lady finds herself in. Inevitably, there has been a lot of tinkering with tax rates in oil and gas. In my 15 years in the House, it has seemed that barely a year goes by without many paragraphs of any Finance Bill being part and parcel of this. Clearly, we are not yet to know whether the gas price and oil price will be stabilised at $50 to $60 a barrel or will go in different directions. I am sure that the Treasury has this whole issue under constant review.
Kirsty Blackman
The hon. Gentleman may have heard my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) say that 50% of the supply chain companies that would be affected are actually based south of the border. This would benefit companies across the UK. The Scottish Government have been incredibly good at reaching their climate change targets. They have worked very hard on renewable electricity. The only problem is that the Conservative Government are getting in our way.
Rob Marris
I did hear the hon. Gentleman say that, and I also heard the hon. Lady say, when she was moving new clause 5, that she did not even realise that that was the case. Paradoxically for them, I support the new clause and I hope it is agreed to. It looks attractive to me because such a review could lead to a situation in which taxation on oil and gas is increased appropriately. We will not know until we have the evidence, so let us have the review.
Jane Ellison
Given the SNP’s track record on predicting the oil price, the hon. Gentleman should think carefully before digging—
Jane Ellison
No, I will continue because I want to move on to the points made by the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles.
On amendment 177, I note the comments made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris). He was quite correct in his analysis of what the amendment would do. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) that it is a probing amendment, but it would indeed cancel the charge for corporation tax in the 2017-18 financial year, depriving the Government of over £45 billion of corporation tax receipts in that year alone. I of course take the point that he wants support for small business and so on, but we are doing a great deal—for example, the business rates package, which will come into effect next spring. For fairly obvious reasons, we cannot support such a loss to the Exchequer.
New clause 5 was tabled by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin), but moved by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman). It calls on the Government to publish a review of corporation tax rates and investment allowances applicable to oil and gas-producing companies in the UK. The UK Government remain 100% behind the oil and gas sector and the thousands of workers and families it supports, but a further review into oil and gas taxes would not serve any useful purpose at this time because the Government have recently carried out such an exercise. In 2014, the Government published “Driving investment: a plan to reform the oil and gas fiscal regime”. It set out the Government’s long-term plan to ensure that the fiscal regime continues to support the objective of maximising the economic recovery of oil and gas, while ensuring a fair return on those resources for the nation. The Government have remained consistent in their approach.
Jane Ellison
That issue was explored in some detail in Committee, so I will not respond on it now.
I want to make the important point that the changes introduced by the Finance Bill will provide the right conditions to maximise the economic recovery of the UK’s oil and gas resources by lowering sector-specific tax rates, updating the current system of allowances and expanding the types of activity that can generate financial relief. Another important point often stated—indeed, it has been made by many people who work in the sector and by investors in it—is that stability and certainty in the tax regime are major factors in making investment decisions. For that reason, we do not think it is right to have another review. Such a review could create further uncertainty at a time when it is not right for the industry, and it could delay investment. I therefore urge Members to reject new clause 5.
Jane Ellison
No. I am sorry, but I want to move on to new clause 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles. It proposes an independent review into the efficacy of the taxation of securitisation companies. The Government do not consider that necessary. Regulations introduced under a Labour Government in 2006 applied specific corporation tax rules to the profits of securitisation companies. The regulations contain several anti-avoidance tests. As announced in the Budget, HMRC is reviewing these regulations to reflect recent changes to accounting standards and market developments. A consultative working group, made up of independent professional advisers specialising in securitisations, HM Treasury officials and HMRC technical specialists, has met four times since September 2015 and is looking carefully at a range of issues. Revised regulations developed with the group are expected to be published in draft for public consultation later this year or early next year. As this review is already under way, a further assessment is not required.
On Government amendments 152 and 153, clause 63 and schedule 9 make changes to ensure that the patent box operates in line with the newly agreed international framework resulting from the OECD’s base erosion and profit shifting action plan. As currently drafted, the changes in the Bill could result in different definitions of the term “qualifying residual profit” applying to the same parts of the patent box legislation. The amendments address that problem by providing a coherent and consistent definition for that phrase.
I will comment briefly on Opposition new clause 10. The new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish within six months of the passing of the Bill an independent report giving an assessment of the value for money and efficacy of the patent box. The Government do not support the new clause. We only now have full data for the first year of the patent box, and as such the report required by the new clause would not take into account the revisions to the regime made by the Bill. The proposed one-off publication would also fall short of the plans the Government already have in place to publish annual official statistics on the patent box.
The hon. Lady mentioned that she wished to see more evidence of the impact of the patent box. It is worth noting that, for example, GSK recently attributed a £275 million investment to the UK’s competitive tax regime and specifically mentioned the patent box as a reason to invest.
A number of Government amendments have been tabled to clause 65 and schedule 10, which legislate to counteract avoidance involving hybrid mismatches. The amendments make changes to the legislation to ensure that it works as intended and does not create unintended impacts in terms of its interaction with other areas of the UK tax system. The amendments are necessary to secure the forecast yield from the measures.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) made a typically thoughtful intervention. He mentioned turnover tax versus profits tax—I suspect that is a theme to which he might return. It is worth noting that a turnover tax can produce unfair outcomes, such as penalising businesses that make a loss and those in competitive markets. As I say, I am sure it is an issue to which he may well return.
The Government are committed to making our tax system fundamentally fair, ensuring that people and businesses pay what they owe and contribute to our nation’s success. I therefore once again urge the House to reject the amendments and new clauses tabled by the Opposition.
Kirsty Blackman
I will press new clause 5 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Kirsty Blackman
It is not entirely clear. Will the Minister let us know whether she will support the inclusion of new clause 7 on the basis that, as she has just made clear, it would be a good idea and important to do so? If she is not willing to support it, will she justify why the Government are willing to leave the loophole undiscussed and in place?
Jane Ellison
As I have just laid out, consultation is under way, which provides an opportunity to look at those precise issues. As I said, I invite the SNP to engage with that consultation.
Turning to deal with the lengthy speech and case made for Labour’s new clause 13, which provides for a report on the UK tax gap, the tax gap is an official statistic published each October and it is produced in accordance with a code of practice for official statistics, which assures objectivity and integrity. The methodology is judged by independent third parties to be robust, and it has been intensively reviewed and given a clean bill of health by both the International Monetary Fund and the National Audit Office. There is therefore no need for a report on the tax gap. Furthermore, HMRC publishes a methodological annexe alongside the tax gap publication, which provides details of the data and methodology used to produce estimates of the gap.
I think it fair to say that, in speaking about new clause 13, the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles painted a picture which, on the Government of the House and, I suspect in other parts as well, could be regarded as at the very least ungenerous and in many ways inaccurate, unfair and, indeed, unrecognisable, given the way in which the she downplayed the efforts made by the Government. To call that tinkering at the edges is simply nonsense.
Since 2010, the Government have given HMRC £1.8 billion to tackle evasion, avoidance and non-compliance, and, as I said earlier, over that period HMRC has secured £130 billion in additional tax revenues. We have shown considerable ambition, and, as other Opposition Members have been generous enough to acknowledge, international leadership. I therefore do not accept the criticisms that were voiced from the Opposition Front Bench. It is also worth noting that in the summer Budget of 2015, the Government invested a further £800 million to fund additional work to tackle tax evasion and non-compliance.
No Government, particularly the last Labour Government, have come close to being as ambitious as we have been since 2010 in respect of this important agenda. The fact that there was considerable agreement across the House in the earlier part of the debate, and the fact that the Government have accepted the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Don Valley, gives some weight to our claim that we are beginning to strike a UK consensus about the need to tackle this problem, and we have a chance to continue to make progress. I know that there is an appetite to return to these issues. There is a real desire to see the Government continue to lead internationally on avoidance and evasion, and the House can be reassured that that is exactly what we intend to do.
Mr Chope
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It sounds wonderful, does it not, Mr Speaker: an EU VAT action plan? We were led to believe that the action would provide more flexibility, but when one looked at the small print in the action plan, one could see that the whole thing was steered towards more rigidity, harmonisation and uniformity, exactly as my right hon. Friend has pointed out. Again, is it not fantastic that we will now be able to take responsibility for these things ourselves? I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who will be responding to the debate, will take the opportunity to state that from now on the Treasury will be a lot more open in the way it does its business, both with this House and with the people, and that it will not use disingenuous statements to create an impression that is inconsistent with reality.
It does not seem to me that we will be able to make this change lawfully unless and until we have negotiated our exit. I wish that we could, but as somebody who believes in the rule of law, I think that that is the position we are in. But how different it is from the position that we were led to believe we were in prior to the referendum. I wonder why that is!
Kirsty Blackman
I promise that I will speak only briefly, because I know that everybody is keen to get away.
I thank the Government for their movement on this issue already. In my short time as an MP, there has been a major change in VAT on sanitary products, and I appreciate the Government taking that on. We owe huge thanks to the women who have campaigned about this, not only those in the House—such as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) and other Members from across the House—but all the other women who have put their time and effort into campaigning.
I would like to highlight briefly some of the anomalies that continue in relation to sanitary products and VAT. VAT is still levied on incontinence products. Unless someone fits a very narrow definition of “disabled” under the law, they pay VAT on incontinence products. In the UK, between 3 million and 6 million people suffer from incontinence, and the UK Government receive the VAT from the sale of those products. I do not think that that is right; I think that those individuals should be able to get incontinence products VAT-free, because they are a necessity for those 3 million to 6 million people.
The other anomaly in the system concerns breast pads. If someone who is breastfeeding has an excess supply of milk and is therefore leaking milk, they require breast pads. There are no two ways about it. They absolutely require those pads, or they will be covered in milk. Having done that a number of times myself, I am well aware of the pitfalls.
Alison Thewliss
Having breastfed my children, I well know that circumstance and how it can arise. This points to the need for a wider review of VAT—perhaps at the point of Brexit, or even starting now—on items that have emerged into the market. Breast pumps, for example, are still liable for VAT, whereas formula is not. That has a disproportionate effect on people who choose breastfeeding over formula feeding.
Kirsty Blackman
I absolutely agree with my colleague. If we are to encourage breastfeeding and to make it as accessible as possible for people, we need to ensure that the products they require to breastfeed well, and without making too much mess, are appropriately VAT-rated. The interesting thing is that the zero-rating guidance was written a long time ago, and it is not appropriate for today’s society. If the Government were, as my hon. Friend suggests, to commit to undertake a proper review and making sure that people are not unfairly penalised for buying essential, necessary products, I would very much appreciate it.
Finance Bill (Fifth sitting)
Kirsty Blackman Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
Clause 114 makes changes to ensure that charities subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court of the Isle of Man are able to obtain the same VAT release as charities in the United Kingdom. As the hon. Lady says, it is a largely technical clause, and I am not surprised that it is uncontroversial.
The hon. Lady raises the perfectly fair issue of the future of VAT in the light of the Brexit vote. That is indeed one of the issues that we will have to wrestle with. All I can say at the moment is that it is something that we will have to consider. It will depend very much on the nature of the relationship that we have with the European Union, and of course that will be a matter for negotiation, and for decision by the next Prime Minister. Although the hon. Lady raises a fair question, and her point is well made, I fear at this point I am not able to provide any clarity for her.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 114 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 115
VAT: women’s sanitary products
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 115, page 162, line 8, leave out from “liners” to end of line 9.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, in clause 115, page 162, line 10, at end insert—
“(d) products that are designed, and marketed, as being solely for use for absorbing breastmilk”.
Amendment 5, in clause 115, page 162, line 14, after “after” insert
“1 April 2017, or on any prior”.
Clause stand part.
Kirsty Blackman
I want to start by thanking the Government. I am pleased that it is hoped that clause 115 will stand part of the Bill; it is a good move by the Government. I welcome the huge amount of hard work done last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and by Members across the House on raising this matter. I appreciate the work that was done, and the fact that the Government have included this clause in the Bill.
I want to talk about our intention. In amendment 1 we are looking at the removal of the exemption from the zero rate for incontinence products. I understand that the Government’s proposal does not include incontinence products. There is some technical language in VAT legislation relating to people with disabilities and their ability to claim zero-rate VAT on incontinence products. However, that does not apply across the board to everybody who has incontinence problems; it applies only to those who meet the specific criteria that were drafted.
We have real concerns about that. Just because somebody is not registered disabled does not mean that they do not need to use incontinence products. That is a serious issue and the Government should not charge VAT in that case. If somebody has problems with incontinence, these products are necessary for their wellbeing and in their everyday life. The Government need to look again at the earlier legislation.
If we could have broadened the clause to include men’s incontinence products as well as women’s, we would have done that. However, because the clause was titled “VAT: women’s sanitary products”, we could not. That is why we are broadening it to include only women’s incontinence products. For clarity, we are talking about incontinence products that women are required to use but that do not fall into the exemption categories in the original VAT legislation.
Amendment 2 concerns products for the absorption of breast milk. I assume neither of the Ministers here has breastfed, so they may not know all the ins and outs of how this works. I breastfed both my children for about three years in total, so I have some experience. The amendment proposes that
“products that are designed, and marketed, as being solely for use for absorbing breastmilk”
be zero-rated for VAT.
Breastfeeding is incredibly important and has huge health benefits for mother and child. It is completely and totally natural and is what a woman’s body expects to happen after she has had a child. When breastfeeding a child, it takes a while for the milk supply and the child’s feeding to balance. There is a period where the mother has too much or too little milk—usually too much, so there is an awful lot of leaking of milk. People do not usually talk about this in public, but there are stories about it all over the internet. In one case, a woman was at a job interview, at which somebody mentioned children, and suddenly there was a let-down, which means milk coming out at speed. Absorption products are absolutely necessary. It is vital for women to have breast pads that go inside the bra and absorb breast milk when that let-down happens. That happens not to all women, but to a huge number.
These products are required; they are not in any way a luxury. They are not something that women could do without, unless they were willing to bring several changes of clothes with them, which is not particularly practical when they are already doing absolute heaps of washing because they have a new baby.
Kirsty Blackman
I am not 100% sure of the protocol here. Given the Minister’s suggestion that a future Government might look into the matter, and as he has listened to what we have said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 115 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 116
SDLT: calculating tax on non-residential and mixed transactions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Kirsty Blackman
On a point of order, Sir Roger. We were sent a list of various territories to which these provisions apply. Some are for Scotland only, some are for Scotland and Northern Ireland, and some are for England and Wales. I am unsure how we proceed to consider this in terms of English votes for English laws. Any guidance you can give us, Sir Roger, would be hugely appreciated.
The Chair
I am advised that English votes for English laws does not apply in Committee. If such issues arise, they will be addressed on the Floor of the House. I hope that is satisfactory.
Finance Bill (Sixth sitting)
Kirsty Blackman Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
As we have heard, clauses 126 and 127 make changes to stop the avoidance of stamp duty on shares, which will raise £155 million over the rest of this Parliament. They will ensure that the tax system operates fairly by closing an increasingly exploited loophole in which deep-in-the-money options are used to transfer shares to financial institutions or clearance services that then issue depository receipts that represent those shares and can be traded. The measure was announced by the Chancellor in the autumn statement. Stamp duty or stamp duty reserve tax, together referred to as stamp tax on shares, are charged on the purchase of shares in UK companies at 0.5% of their price. When shares are transferred to a depository receipt issuer or clearance service, a higher rate of 1.5% applies, reflecting the fact that subsequent transactions will no longer be taxed.
HMRC has become aware of a practice of deep-in-the-money options being used to avoid the higher rate charge and the Government have acted to stop it. A call option over shares gives their holder the right to buy the shares at a given price—the strike price—on or before a specified date. The price paid for the option is its premium. Deep-in-the-money call options have a strike price significantly below their market value and a high premium, which means the premium reflects the vast majority of the underlying value of the shares. When shares are transferred using an option, stamp tax is currently charged on the strike price and not on the premium, with the result that when purchasing shares using a deep-in-the-money option, tax could be based on the strike price of only a few pence when each share is really worth much more.
Deep-in-the-money options are being artificially created and then exercised immediately to transfer shares to depository receipt issuers or clearance services, avoiding a significant tax charge. Clearly that is not fair. As a result of the changes being made, the 1.5% higher rate stamp tax charge now applies to either the market value of the shares or the option strike price, whichever is greater. The measure applies to all options entered into on or after 25 November 2015 if they were exercised on or after 23 March 2016. This is a targeted response that will apply to a relatively small number of transactions where HMRC has identified clear evidence of tax avoidance. The change will apply only to transfers of shares to clearance services or depository receipt issuers and only when options are settled with shares, not cash. HMRC carried out public consultation following the autumn statement and no wider market impacts were identified.
The technical consultation was open from 9 December 2015 to 3 February 2016 and received three responses. Stakeholders questioned whether there was evidence of avoidance and the magnitude of the costing. HMRC has clear evidence that the Office for Budget Responsibility certified the costing so no changes were made as a result. Separately, meetings with industry bodies and depository receipt issuers have not indicated wider issues with the measure.
The rationale for costs for the differential rates is that stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax apply the same rates to paper and electronic share transfers. I hope that that provides some clarity.
In conclusion, the Government have acted quickly to close a new tax loophole. Clauses 126 and 127 will stop avoidance of stamp tax on shares, raising a significant sum for the Exchequer and ensuring that the tax rules operate fairly.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 126 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 127 and 128 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Howarth. Should we not be dealing with new clauses 3 and 6 with clause 128, or will we vote on them at the end? You have taken clauses 127 and 128 together.
The Chair
The hon. Lady is quite right and I beg her pardon. The script I am reading from slightly misled me.
Kirsty Blackman
We debated the new clauses on Tuesday morning, but I would appreciate it if we could withdraw new clause 3 and have a vote on new clause 6, or will we do that at the end? That is what I am trying to ascertain.
The Chair
The vote on new clause 3 will be at the end. We will now move on, with the greatest clarity available to me, to clause 130.
Clause 130
Landfill tax: rates from 1 April 2017
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
My apologies for causing confusion earlier. If I am ever lucky enough to be on a Finance Bill again, I promise to try hard not to cause so much confusion.
The Government will not be surprised that we have tabled this new clause, because it concerns an ongoing issue between the Scottish and UK Governments. We feel that it still requires attention. To give a little background, before the incorporation of the police and fire authorities, regional authorities were gifted VAT exemption for the fire and rescue and police services. In 2013, when the single Scottish police force and the fire service were brought in, the VAT exemption failed to be carried over to the new services.
The Government argue that the exemption should not apply because national non-departmental public bodies are outside the exemptions under the Value Added Tax Act 1994. Since the issue has arisen, however, HMRC and HM Treasury have decided that tax breaks should be given to the new transport agency Highways England, which is a national non-departmental public body, and that the exemption should be given to the UK-wide Olympic legacy organisation, London Legacy Development Corporation. Those are comparable organisations in terms of territorial extent and they are national bodies, but they have been given the exemption. The Conservative Government can no longer say that the issue is one of fairness, when it is clearly one of unfairness.
The VAT charge, which is being levied unfairly, is costing Scotland’s emergency services tens of millions every year. We would appreciate the opportunity to spend the money on front-line services instead. We have tabled the new clause in the hope that the Government will look at the issue, particularly in the light of the fact that they have permitted exemptions for Highways England and London Legacy. The Government should consider fairness and parity.
Mr Gauke
This is a familiar debate. The new clause requests that the Treasury reviews the VAT treatment of the Scottish police and fire and rescue services, reporting the cost of VAT and what the change would be if they were eligible for a refund. I am tempted to refer the Committee to the speech I have given on numerous occasions previously, as well as to the history of this. Furthermore, the Scottish Government made the decision to reform their public services knowing full well about the VAT implications.
As was explained last year, any use of Treasury resource to review and produce a report into the financial position of Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service would be unjustified. Neither is eligible to receive VAT refunds under existing legislation, and the Treasury has no intention of amending principles of the VAT refund scheme to change that. I recognise that the SNP has raised the issue before, and I dare say that it will again. However, we cannot support the new clause and, if pressed to a vote, I recommend that the Committee rejects it.
Kirsty Blackman
We wish to return to the matter on Report, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Fuel duty regulator regime
‘The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall undertake a review of fuel duty to establish the form of fuel duty regulator regime which would best ensure stability of pricing, and report to Parliament within six months of the passing of this Act.’—(Philip Boswell.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I understand that we are going to be running through new clauses 1 to 6. If it is your pleasure, Mr Howarth, I will speak to new clause 4, as advised.
The Chair
New clauses 2 and 3 have already been debated. We are now dealing with new clauses 4 and 5, which are open to debate. Is that helpful?
The Chair
You could do if you wanted to. If there is a desire to have Divisions on them, the procedure allows for it.
Kirsty Blackman
Apologies. It was our intention to withdraw them but we are unsure as to the stage at which we should do that.
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would allow the taxation of allowances payable to Members of the House of Lords to be reviewed. Members of the House of Lords receive a tax-free allowance of £300 for every day that they pitch up and sign in. They do not all claim it, but many of them do. In 2014-15, the House of Lords sat for 126 days. That was a low number of days—normally they sit for more—but I have done some calculations on the basis of that. If one peer was there for all 126 days, they would receive £37,800 tax-free for that year. If we imagine that a lot of peers are on the 40% tax rate—many will be in the 45% bracket; not many will be on a lower tax rate—we are looking at a tax loss to the Treasury of £15,120 per peer. If 798 peers pitched up on all those days, that is a tax loss to the Treasury of £12 million.
Most peers do not turn up every day. The average attendance last year was 483 peers on any given day, which means that the loss to the Treasury is more like £7 million every year. That is quite a lot of money, and considering that the majority of those who sit in the House of Lords probably do not have a huge need for that money, I believe, as a member of a progressive party, that it would be better for some of that wealth to be redistributed. Will the Government seriously consider examining whether those people sitting in the House of Lords should, in times of austerity, receive a tax-free payment? The Treasury could easily do something on this issue; it could decide to tax the £300-a-day allowance at the appropriate level, depending on what the Member earns in other income. This is not a good use of taxpayers’ money. The money could come to the Treasury, but we are using it instead for a tax-free allowance for peers.
Mr Gauke
The Government oppose new clause 5. We are committed to ensuring a fair and more sustainable tax system for everyone, but the Finance Bill is not the appropriate vehicle to review the system of financial support for Members of the House of Lords. The new clause says that the Chancellor of the Exchequer
“shall undertake a review of the tax-free status of allowances payable to members of the House of Lords”.
The Government recognise the importance of keeping the general system of tax reliefs and allowances under review. That is done routinely by the Treasury and HMRC, who consult on changes to the tax system as part of the policy-making process, but the House of Lords introduced the present system of financial support in 2010. That system and its basis have not changed, and therefore we do not consider that the tax treatment needs to be re-examined at this time. In addition, such a review could not be carried out in isolation; the system would need to be considered as a whole, and the Finance Bill is not the vehicle to consider such constitutional reform.
Finally, this cannot be a matter solely for the Commons; we must respect the constitutional position. For the Commons to intervene on House of Lords reform without any involvement of the other House would not be the right process. It is simply not the place of the Finance Bill to legislate for such a review.
Kirsty Blackman
Given that we are asking for a review, it is quite possible that peers and the House of Lords could be consulted and have input into that review. I think the very place to discuss taxation and allowances in taxation is the Finance Bill. That is what we did with respect to workers who work through intermediaries. This is a totally sensible place to discuss this issue.
Mr Gauke
As I said, this has to be looked at in the context of the system of financial support for Members of the House of Lords in the round; we cannot look at the tax system in isolation, which is what a review under the Finance Bill would have to do. This is not the right way in which to consider the system of financial support for Members of the House of Lords. Any review of that system would need to be done in the round, and the new clause is not appropriate for the Finance Bill. I therefore urge hon. Members to oppose new clause 5, if it is pressed to a Division.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I understand that the Review Body on Senior Salaries published a review of financial support for Members of the other place in November 2009. Our position is that there needs to be a broader review of House of Lords salaries and allowances. We are happy to support the Scottish National party if the new clause is pressed to a vote; it certainly deserves consideration.
Kirsty Blackman
A number of my colleagues would love to speak on this issue on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 6
Oil and gas: decommissioning contracts
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall commission a review of the ways in which the tax regime could be changed to increase the competitiveness of UK-registered companies in bidding for supply chain contracts associated with the decommissioning of oil and gas infrastructure.
(2) In undertaking the review, the Chancellor shall consult the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Oil and Gas Authority; Scottish Ministers; and any other stakeholders that the Chancellor thinks appropriate.
(3) The Chancellor shall report to Parliament on the results of his review within six months of the passing of this Act.”.—(Philip Boswell.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Finance Bill (Fourth sitting)
Kirsty Blackman Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
I am disappointed that this clause and the approach that the Government are taking do not have cross-party support, but I am sure that my hon. Friends on the Government side will support the measures.
The first point I have to make in response to the criticism of the clause is that, of course, the Government were elected and one of our manifesto pledges was to take forward measures to take the family home out of inheritance tax. We also have to bear it in mind that not doing anything on inheritance tax is not a neutral option, because the consequence of leaving inheritance tax alone is that, in a period in which property prices increase, more and more households and estates fall within inheritance tax and inheritance tax receipts will go up. It is worth pointing out that inheritance tax receipts in cash terms will continue to be higher under this Government than at any time since the introduction of inheritance tax in 1986, including the period of the last Labour Government between 1997 and 2010, when receipts peaked at £3.8 billion in 2007-08. Let us remember that.
Regarding the impact of not doing anything, do remember that relatively modest properties have increased in value. In 2015, the average house price in London was £552,000 and in the south-east it was £375,000. That means that relatively modest households were potentially finding themselves with an inheritance tax bill, which had not previously been the case under Governments of different colours.
Some technical points were made by Opposition Members. I was asked whether the downsizing rules will apply when the former house was held in a trust. Amendment 19 caters for such situations. The measure will apply only where the former home was held in a type of trust that was set up for the benefit of a person during their lifetime and that person had a right to the trust assets. It does not apply to former homes held in discretionary trusts because they would not qualify for the residence nil-rate band in those circumstances.
I was asked whether the estate would qualify for the allowance if the home is left in trust for a spouse and on their death passes to the children. The answer to that is no. If the home is transferred on death to a life interest trust to the benefit of the surviving spouse, the deceased’s estate will not qualify for the residence nil-rate band because the home is not inherited by a direct descendant at that time. However, the unused portion of the residence nil-rate band can be transferred to the surviving spouse’s estate to be used on their death. If the home subsequently passes to a direct descendant on the death of the surviving spouse or life tenant, their estate will be eligible for the residence nil-rate band.
In terms of exact numbers for the United Kingdom, I do not have those numbers; I will have to write to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. However, it is the case that there are beneficiaries of this policy throughout the United Kingdom.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
We are not denying that there will be people who will benefit from not paying tax or from paying less tax, but in places in Scotland you can get a castle for £1 million—albeit a small castle—and that is in no way, shape or form a family home, and it should not be classed as such.
Mr Gauke
I come back to what I was saying earlier, namely, that doing nothing will mean that many properties, often relatively modest properties, will fall within the inheritance tax bands. Doing nothing will mean that a tax that I think most people in this country would support, on the basis that it is designed for the very wealthy, would apply to people who would not necessarily have had high incomes in their lifetimes. That creates a sense of unfairness. There are certainly parts of Edinburgh where relatively modest properties are of such a value as to create concerns about inheritance tax.
Mr Gauke
As we have heard, clause 83 makes changes to ensure that when an individual dies, unused funds in a drawdown pension are not treated as part of their estate for inheritance tax purposes. Without the clause, a small number of pensions would be liable for inheritance tax in some circumstances, which was not our intention.
As the Committee will be aware, funds that remain in a pension scheme do not traditionally form part of a deceased’s estate and are generally exempt from inheritance tax. Nevertheless, under the current tax rules, in a small number of circumstances undrawn pension funds are unintentionally caught. For example, if an individual has designated funds for pension drawdown and then passes away without having drawn down all those funds, an inheritance tax charge may arise.
The Government introduced changes to the pensions tax rules from April 2015 that allowed more people to flexibly access their pension funds from age 55. That flexibility means that the inheritance tax charge might apply to more people who pass away leaving undrawn funds in their pension scheme. It was not intended that an IHT charge should arise in such circumstances; the clause ensures that it will not do so. It changes the existing rules so that an inheritance tax charge will not arise when a person has unused funds remaining in their drawdown pension when they die.
The changes will be backdated and will apply for deaths on or after 6 April 2011, so that they include any charges that could arise from the time when the general rule ceased to apply. The minor changes made by the clause will help to maintain the integrity and consistency of the pensions system while supporting those who have worked hard and saved responsibly throughout their lives. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 83 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 84
Inheritance tax: victims of persecution during Second World War era
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Kirsty Blackman
I am pleased that this clause has been included in the Bill. It seems to be a sensible measure, and I am pleased to note that there will be the ability to tidy up afterwards if anything else needs mopping up. The Scottish National party welcomes the clause.
Mr Gauke
I thank the hon. Lady for her support. I would expect such a measure to have the support of the whole Committee. As the Prime Minister said on National Holocaust Day,
“whatever our faith, whatever our creed, whatever our politics”
it is right that the whole country should stand together to remember the
“darkest hour of human history.”
To that end, the Government have committed to building a national memorial in London to show the importance that Britain places on preserving the memory of the holocaust.
The clause provides further reassurance and certainty to holocaust victims by placing on a statutory footing their right not to pay inheritance tax on the compensation they receive as a result of their persecution. I am proud that the Government have extended the inheritance tax exemption even further to include a one-off compensation payment for the victims who endured such an unimaginable trauma in their childhood. I am delighted that the clause has cross-party support.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 84 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 85
Inheritance tax: gifts for national purposes etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Kirsty Blackman
I understand that guidance on the apprenticeship levy has been released. The information I was able to find online said that further guidance on things such as provisional bands would be released in June 2016, but I cannot find any. Perhaps it is just that I have been unable to find it, but it would be useful if that guidance was provided.
I draw attention to the issue with employee-owned companies. I was approached by such a company that pays its employees their share of the profits through PAYE, so that share of the profits will be subject to the apprenticeship levy. Had the company been set up to pay dividends to shareholders, it would not have to pay the levy. The staff there have come to me with a specific issue that is unique to them, because they would not have to pay the levy if their company was structured differently. Will the Minister comment on such employee-owned companies?
Rebecca Long Bailey
As we have heard, this substantial group of clauses introduces the apprenticeship levy that was announced in the summer Budget and autumn statement in 2015. I shall address my remarks to clauses 87 to 110 as a group, touching on new clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, and Government amendments 22 to 28.
The apprenticeship levy was announced in 2015 and will come into force in April 2017 as part of the Government’s commitment to reaching 3 million apprenticeships by 2020. The levy will be charged on large employers with annual pay bills in excess of £3 million. According to the HMRC policy paper, that means that less than 2% of employers will pay the levy. It will be charged at 0.5% of an employer’s pay bill through PAYE. Each employer will receive one annual allowance of £15,000 to offset against its levy payment. Employers operating multiple payrolls will be able to claim only one allowance. As we have heard, levy funds will be retained as electronic vouchers in a digital apprenticeship service account. The employer can spend these vouchers on training and end-point assessment from accredited apprenticeship providers, but not on associated costs such as administration of apprenticeships, pay or allowances.
According to the Government’s costings, the levy is expected to raise £2.7 billion in its first financial year, rising to just over £3 billion by 2020-21. HMRC’s policy paper states specifically:
“It is expected that the levy will support productivity growth through the increase in training. It may have a near-term impact in reducing earnings growth, although by supporting increased productivity, it is expected that the levy will lead to increased profitability for businesses, and increased wages over the long-term.”
The paper also assesses the impact on business, stating:
“For employers paying the levy, the measure is expected to have some impact on administration costs and the impact will vary by employer, depending on the size of their pay bill. The policy intention is that they will calculate and pay the levy on a monthly basis. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) will engage with employers to discuss and assess the impacts on them.”
Opposition Members are certainly happy to support the introduction of the apprenticeship levy, but we have some concerns that we would like the Minister to provide some reassurances on.
Business representatives have broadly welcomed the levy as a commitment to delivering increased apprenticeship places. However, they have widely expressed concern at the short timeframe for implementation, the lack of guidance to date ahead of the introduction and the limitations that the proposals place on expenditure. Indeed, the Confederation of British Industry has called for a “realistic lead-in time” and for
“taking the time to get this right”,
while EEF, the Manufacturers Organisation, has specifically called for a delay to the levy’s introduction full stop.
In addition, the high target of 3 million apprenticeship starters by 2020 has caused concern that there could be a race to the bottom in terms of the quality of apprenticeships. Mark Beatson, chief economist at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, has said:
“We’d argue that the three million target should not be sacrosanct, and that quantity should not trump quality.”
Can the Minister therefore outline what regulatory framework or safeguards are in place to ensure that the quality of apprenticeships is up to scratch?
The Charity Finance Group is particularly concerned that the charitable sector does not have highly developed human resources departments or accredited apprenticeship training schemes. The sector remains reliant on volunteers whose expenses cannot be remunerated via the apprenticeship levy. The CFG is also concerned that significant charity resources are tied up in public sector contracts or that charitable donors will seek confirmation that their donations will fund a charity’s specific cause.
Indeed, public sector employers themselves have expressed concern that, first, the levy is being introduced at a time of severe funding cuts and, secondly, that it is accompanied by a new requirement in the sector to ensure that 2.3% of workers are apprentices. The Local Government Association has urged that local authorities be exempted from payment but given authority to oversee administration of levy funds locally. Can the Minister confirm that the Government have considered that approach?
There may be scope for local authorities to co-ordinate. For instance, councils could take up a commissioning role in the Digital Apprenticeship Service, or unallocated levy funding could be reallocated to contributing areas and commissioned locally rather than being retained centrally.
Another issue that I would like the Minister to shine some light on today is agency workers and large recruitment agencies. In particular, the largest recruitment agencies have expressed concern to me that they will be liable to make large levy payments for placing employees in other companies, including for periods that would not qualify for a quality apprenticeship—over 12 months.
The Recruitment and Employment Confederation has raised concerns that large recruitment agencies will have to pay the levy on their pay bill when they place employees in temporary employment in different workplaces, so that those employees are paid by the agency but not working for it. Indeed, the TUC has expressed concern that agency contracts may be used by employers to lower their PAYE bill and reduce their levy requirement. Opposition Members are really concerned about that, so can the Minister say what steps are in place to ensure that it does not happen?
Finally, I have some concerns about how the levy will work under a devolved Administration, and I think that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath shares those concerns, as do his colleagues. That is reflected in new clause 2, where they have requested a review addressing how equitable treatment of the different parts of the UK will be assured in its implementation. Throughout their submissions they have asked some very pertinent questions, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses to them.
The levy will be UK-wide, so employers operating across the devolved nations will pay their contribution based on all their UK employees, irrespective of where they live or work. However, the vouchers that levy-paying employers will be allocated—they can spend them on apprenticeship training—will be based only on the portion of the levy that they pay on the pay bill for their English employees. Funds available for training in devolved Administrations are provided through the block grant, and allocation will be decided upon by the Administration.
There appears to be very little guidance on how the apprenticeship levy will work in the devolved Administrations, so I would be grateful if the Minister could provide more detail today. For example, will the funds levied from a company’s UK operations based in devolved nations be identifiable in the grants made to devolved Administrations? We will support new clause 2 if it is pushed to a vote today.
I turn now to Government amendments 22 to 28, which relate to clauses 88, 90, 91 and 109. Clause 90, as drafted, states that where there is an aggregate pay bill of a group of connected companies that will qualify to pay the apprenticeship levy and each would be entitled to a levy allowance, only one will in fact be entitled to the allowance. The connected companies must nominate which company will qualify. Similarly, clause 91 sets out that at the beginning of the tax year, where two or more qualified charities are connected with one another, only one will be entitled to the levy allowance to be offset against the apprenticeship levy.
Government amendments to those two clauses allow companies and charities that are connected for the purposes of the apprenticeship levy to share their annual levy allowance of £15,000 between them, instead of only one company or charity being entitled to the allowance. There is also a consequential amendment to clause 88, which, according to the Minister’s letter,
“allows for the levy allowance not being the full £15,000, if a group of connected employers choose to split it under sections 90 or 91.”
The Government have stated that these changes are in response to representations they have received, and the Opposition are also aware of concerns from stakeholders about the legislation as currently drafted. We therefore fully support these amendments.
Amendments 26 and 28 are technical amendments that clarify that the definition of a company in clause 90 applies to the whole of part 6 of the Bill relating to the apprenticeship levy. Again, we are happy to support these Government amendments.
In conclusion, the Opposition have long called for Government action to drive growth in productivity. That is the underlying problem that the Chancellor has failed to deal with time and again. Supporting apprenticeships is certainly an important factor in doing so, and we are therefore supportive of these measures in the Bill. However, we have some serious concerns about the machinery of the specific clauses, as I have outlined, and I hope that the Minister can address them in his response.
Kirsty Blackman
A number of people have got in touch on this point. I would appreciate it if the Government could keep it in mind going forward, and consider making changes. Employee ownership is really important, and going forward we will have more and more employee-owned companies. I do not want people to be discouraged from taking that route because they will have to structure their pay bills differently as a result of the apprenticeship levy.
Mr Gauke
I note the point the hon. Lady makes. The difficulty is that carving out bonuses that are distributed to employees of owner-managed businesses from the definition of earnings would increase the incentive to remunerate employees via bonuses rather than regular salary. That could create adverse incentives, and would also have a damaging impact on public finances. I understand why the hon. Lady raises this point, but I hope that she appreciates why we have not gone down that particular route.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles about employment agencies, the apprenticeship levy will be payable by employers who pay earnings subject to class 1 secondary NICs. Where an employment agency supplies labour to a client and is the NICs secondary contributor for those workers, the agency will, like any other employer, be liable to pay the apprenticeship levy, provided that its annual pay bill is in excess of £3 million.
Apprenticeships are now the cornerstone of the skills system and provide opportunities for all sectors and all levels. Everyone stands to benefit from the better-skilled workforce that the apprenticeship levy will help to deliver. It is right that everyone plays their part and contributes to that. There is no reason why an agency could not take advantage of the drawdown from its levy account, if it satisfied the relevant criteria. We are introducing a number of flexibilities in funding for apprenticeships, such as the ability to use funding for equivalent and lower-level apprenticeships where the training is materially different from the learner’s existing qualification or leads to training in a new profession.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath about top-slicing for England-only programmes, let me reassure him that we will not top-slice levy accounts to fund administration costs. To answer his question about what regulatory framework will ensure appropriate quality, the levy is just part of the Government’s reforms designed to improve the quality of apprenticeships. We are creating a new institute for apprenticeships to monitor quality standards, and employer-led trailblazer groups, which I touched upon a moment ago, and which allow employers to design new training standards. There are also funding rules; they require 20% off-the-job training and that apprenticeships must last one year. The Ofsted inspection regime applies to English training providers in order to guarantee quality, and there is the levy itself, which fosters employee ownership.
On the devolved authority funding mechanism, we are committed to doing all we can to make the system work for employers, wherever they are in the UK. I am pleased to see that the Scottish Government will shortly consult on how the apprenticeship levy could enhance productivity and growth in Scotland, and I would encourage other devolved nations to do the same. It will not be possible to identify individual employer contributions in the block grant; I wanted to provide that point of clarity. On the wider issue of productivity, the Government remain committed to improving productivity by increasing the quantity and quality of apprenticeships. The apprenticeship levy will enable us to do that. That is why I am pleased that we have these clauses in front of us, and I hope that they will have the support of the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 87 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 88
charge to apprenticeship levy
Amendments made: 22, in clause 88, page 144, line 32, leave out
“any of sections 90 to”
and insert “section”.
Amendment 23, in clause 88, page 144, line 33, leave out “of £15,000”.
Amendment 24, in clause 88, page 144, line 33, at end insert—
‘( ) The amount of the levy allowance is £15,000 (except where section 90 or 91 provides otherwise).”—(Mr Gauke.)
Clause 88, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 90
connected companies
Amendments made: 25, in clause 90, page 145, line 33, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
‘(1) Two or more companies which are not charities form a “company unit” for a tax year (and are the “members” of that unit) if—
(a) they are connected with one another at the beginning of the tax year, and
(b) each of them is entitled to a levy allowance for the tax year.
(2) The members of a company unit must determine what amount of levy allowance each of them is to be entitled to for the tax year (and the determination must comply with subsections (3) and (3A)).
But see subsections (3C) and (3H).
(3) A member’s levy allowance for a tax year may be zero (but not a negative amount).
(3A) The total amount of the levy allowances to which the members of a company unit are entitled for a tax year must equal £15,000.
(3B) A determination made under subsection (2) (with respect to a tax year) cannot afterwards be altered by the members concerned (but this does not prevent the correction of a failure to comply with subsection (3A)).
(3C) If subsection (3E) applies—
(a) HMRC must determine in accordance with subsection (3D) what amount of levy allowance each of the relevant members (see subsection (3E)(a)) of the unit concerned is to be entitled to for the tax year, and
(b) accordingly subsection (2) is treated as never having applied in relation to that company unit and that tax year.
(3D) The determination is to be made by multiplying the amount of levy allowance set out in each relevant return (see subsection (3E)(a)) by—
where T is the total of the amounts of levy allowance set out in the relevant returns.
The result is, in each case, the amount of the levy allowance to which the relevant member in question is entitled for the tax year (but amounts may be rounded up or down where appropriate provided that subsection (3A) is complied with).
(3E) This subsection applies if—
(a) HMRC is aware—
(i) that two or more members of a company unit (“the relevant members”) have made apprenticeship levy returns (“the relevant returns”) on the basis mentioned in subsection (3F), and
(ii) that those returns, together, imply that the total mentioned in subsection (3A) is greater than £15,000,
(b) HMRC has notified the relevant members in writing that HMRC is considering taking action under subsection (3C), and
(c) the remedial action specified in the notice has not been taken within the period specified in the notice.
(3F) The basis in question is that the member making the return is entitled to a levy allowance (whether or not of zero) for the tax year concerned.
(3G) If any member of the company unit mentioned in subsection (3E)(a) is not a relevant member, that member is entitled to a levy allowance of zero for the tax year.
(3H) If subsection (3J) applies—
(a) HMRC must determine in accordance with subsection (3I) what amount of levy allowance each of the members of the unit concerned is to be entitled to for the tax year, and
(b) accordingly subsection (2) is treated as never having applied in relation to that company unit and that tax year.
(3I) Each member of the unit is to be entitled to a levy allowance for the tax year equal to—
where N is the number of the members of the company unit for the tax year.
Amounts determined in accordance with the formula in this subsection may be rounded up or down where appropriate provided that subsection (3A) is complied with.
(3J) This subsection applies if—
(a) the total amount paid by the members of a company unit in respect of apprenticeship levy for a tax year or any period in a tax year is less than the total of the amounts due and payable by them for the tax year or other period concerned,
(b) either the members of the unit have made no apprenticeship levy returns for any period in the tax year concerned or the returns that have been made do not contain sufficient information to enable HMRC to determine how the whole of the £15,000 mentioned in subsection (3A) is to be used by the members of the unit for the tax year,
(c) HMRC has notified all the members of the unit in writing that HMRC is considering taking action under subsection (3H), and
(d) the remedial action specified in the notice has not been taken within the period specified in the notice.
(3K) Subsection (3A) is to be taken into account in calculating the total of the amounts due and payable as mentioned in subsection (3J)(a).
(3L) The Commissioners may by regulations provide that in circumstances specified in the regulations the members of a company unit may alter a determination made under subsection (2) (despite subsection (3B)).
(3M) In this section “apprenticeship levy return” means a return under regulations under section 94(4).”
Amendment 26, in clause 90, page 146, line 1, leave out “section” and insert “Part”—(Mr Gauke.)
Clause 90, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 91
connected charities
Amendment made: 27, in clause 91, page 146, line 5, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
‘(1) Two or more charities form a “charities unit” for a tax year (and are the “members” of that unit) if—
(a) they are connected with one another at the beginning of the tax year, and
(b) each of them is entitled to a levy allowance for the tax year.
(2) The members of a charities unit must determine what amount of levy allowance each of them is to be entitled to for the tax year (and the determination must comply with subsections (3) and (3A)).
But see subsections (3C) and (3H).
(3) A member’s levy allowance for a tax year may be zero (but not a negative amount).
(3A) The total amount of the levy allowances to which the members of a charities unit are entitled for a tax year must equal £15,000.
(3B) A determination made under subsection (2) (with respect to a tax year) cannot afterwards be altered by the members concerned (but this does not prevent the correction of a failure to comply with subsection (3A)).
(3C) If subsection (3E) applies—
(a) HMRC must determine in accordance with subsection (3D) what amount of levy allowance each of the relevant members (see subsection (3E)(a)) of the unit concerned is to be entitled to for the tax year, and
(b) accordingly subsection (2) is treated as never having applied in relation to that charities unit and that tax year.
(3D) The determination is to be made by multiplying the amount of levy allowance set out in each relevant return (see subsection (3E)(a)) by—
where T is the total of the amounts of levy allowance set out in the relevant returns.
The result is, in each case, the amount of the levy allowance to which the relevant member in question is entitled for the tax year (but amounts may be rounded up or down where appropriate provided that subsection (3A) is complied with).
(3E) This subsection applies if—
(a) HMRC is aware—
(i) that two or more members of a charities unit (“the relevant members”) have made apprenticeship levy returns (“the relevant returns”) on the basis mentioned in subsection (3F), and
(ii) that those returns, together, imply that the total mentioned in subsection (3A) is greater than £15,000,
(b) HMRC has notified the relevant members in writing that HMRC is considering taking action under subsection (3C), and
(c) the remedial action specified in the notice has not been taken within the period specified in the notice.
(3F) The basis in question is that the member making the return is entitled to a levy allowance (whether or not of zero) for the tax year concerned.
(3G) If any member of the charities unit mentioned in subsection (3E)(a) is not a relevant member, that member is entitled to a levy allowance of zero for the tax year.
(3H) If subsection (3J) applies—
(a) HMRC must determine in accordance with subsection (3I) what amount of levy allowance each of the members of the unit concerned is to be entitled to for the tax year, and
(b) accordingly subsection (2) is treated as never having applied in relation to that charities unit and that tax year.
(3I) Each member of the unit is to be entitled to a levy allowance for the tax year equal to—
where N is the number of the members of the charities unit for the tax year.
Amounts determined in accordance with the formula in this subsection may be rounded up or down where appropriate provided that subsection (3A) is complied with.
(3J) This subsection applies if—
(a) the total amount paid by the members of a charities unit in respect of apprenticeship levy for a tax year or any period in a tax year is less than the total of the amounts due and payable by them for the tax year or other period concerned,
(b) either the members of the unit have made no apprenticeship levy returns for any period in the tax year concerned or the returns that have been made do not contain sufficient information to enable HMRC to determine how the whole of the £15,000 mentioned in subsection (3A) is to be used by the members of the unit for the tax year,
(c) HMRC has notified all the members of the unit in writing that HMRC is considering taking action under subsection (3H), and
(d) the remedial action specified in the notice has not been taken within the period specified in the notice.
(3K) Subsection (3A) is to be taken into account in calculating the total of the amounts due and payable as mentioned in subsection (3J)(a).
(3L) The Commissioners may by regulations provide that in circumstances specified in the regulations the members of a charities unit may alter a determination made under subsection (2) (despite subsection (3B)).
(3M) In this section “apprenticeship levy return” means a return under regulations under section 94(4).”—(Mr Gauke.)
Clause 91, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 92 to 108 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 109
general interpretation
Amendment made: 28, in clause 109, page 155, line 35, at end insert—
““company” has the meaning given by section90(5);” —(Mr Gauke.)
Clause 109, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 110 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Finance Bill (First sitting)
Kirsty Blackman Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rob Marris
I appreciate the recommendation of the Smith commission, but the clause simply introduces a further layer of complication to the overall tax regime in the United Kingdom—we are still the United Kingdom, of course. As I understand it, we are now almost back to how it was in my youth—and, I suspect, yours as well, Sir Roger—with the differential rates on earned and unearned income and all that sort of stuff, because EVEL is now bleeding into the income tax regime, depending on whether a certain source of income is a reserved or a devolved matter.
I tend to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the former shadow Leader of the House, who called the current EVEL procedure an “incomprehensible mess”. I also tend to agree with the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), who described the proposals as “over-engineered”. It will get incredibly messy unless there is full fiscal devolution—another debate we may or may not get on to today.
On a technical matter, I am indebted to the Chartered Institute of Taxation, as I suspect many hon. Members are, for its helpful suggestions, and this is an arena in which we get to put forward some of its suggestions. One of its technical suggestions is about the table in clause 6. It wonders whether including a table of rates in the statute, which is introduced as having a general effect, might as a matter of statutory interpretation cause issues if the general effect conflicts with a specific effect of other provisions. I hope the Minister can come up with a short piece on that, as regards statutory interpretation.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
We argued against English votes for English laws all the way through. It was a dreadful initiative. The Government intend to reassess English votes for English laws at the end of this year and look at how it has worked, so I think we might be jumping the gun on some of the income tax measures. I will not move against them, but this is possibly doing things a bit too soon. Obviously, we will have our own Scottish rate of income tax, which we can set; it is fabulous that the devolved Administration will be able to do that. However, Scottish MPs will be excluded from discussions on income tax—a major, serious part of the Finance Bill—and that further compounds the difference between Scottish MPs and English and Welsh MPs in this House. The impression given to the general public by the change in the law to enable that to happen will be even worse, and that will hasten the break-up of the United Kingdom.
Mr Gauke
First, I will respond to the hon. Lady. I have certainly heard the comment by the likes of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) that the people of Scotland could not care less about English votes for English laws. He changed his position, and then found himself somewhat outraged by EVEL.
It is perfectly reasonable that when measures affect one part of the UK but not another, those MPs who represent the constituencies affected by it are able to express their views on it and vote on it, and that any such measure should have the support of people representing that part of the UK.
Kirsty Blackman
I understand that the issue is whether or not a measure affects people in those areas, but will the Minister not concede that changes on income tax rates might have a knock-on effect, albeit indirect, on people in Scotland, particularly those who live around the borders?
Mr Gauke
I suppose that is true, but if one wanted to follow the logic of that argument through, independence for Scotland would certainly have a very significant knock-on effect on people living south of the border, and I suspect that the hon. Lady does not advocate any future referendum on that issue requiring the consent of the whole of the United Kingdom. Sir Roger, we could debate this matter for some time, but I suspect the Committee’s appetite to do so is not great.
I do not think that this measure particularly adds to complexity. Non-savings income and non-dividend income, such as employment income, are already taxed differently from other sources of income, such as savings and dividends, so separating out in legisation the rates of income tax on non-savings and non-dividend income from savings will not introduce any real additional complexity. Employees, individuals and pension providers will see no changes to the level of tax paid or the way they pay tax as a result of legislation being introduced in the Finance Bill to separate out the main rates of income tax.
On the specific technical point made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West, if I may, I will write to him on that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Standard lifetime allowance from 2016-17
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Finance Bill (Second sitting)
Kirsty Blackman Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
The clause makes changes to exclude all remaining energy-generation activities from the tax advantage venture capital schemes, thereby ensuring that the schemes continue to be well targeted towards high-risk companies and that the tax reliefs are in keeping with the original policy intent.
The venture capital schemes offer generous tax reliefs to encourage investment in small and growing higher- risk companies that cannot otherwise access finance. In recent years, there has been a significant increase in tax-advantaged investment in energy-generation companies. Such activities are generally lower risk, with predictable, reliable and regular income streams. The Government have previously made changes to exclude from the schemes those companies that have benefited from guaranteed income streams for the generation of energy. However, those exclusions have resulted in investment shifting to other forms of energy generation, rather than to the higher-risk investment that the schemes are intended to support. The changes made by this clause will ensure that the Government remain consistent in their approach by keeping the venture capital schemes targeted at higher-risk companies.
The clause will exclude all forms of energy generation from qualifying for the venture capital schemes, including the seed enterprise scheme, the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts. The Government also intend to apply the exclusions to the social investment tax relief once it is enlarged. The measure is expected to yield £95 million annually from 2016-17 onwards, helping the Government to deliver on their commitment to tackle the budget deficit.
Amendment 135 would require a report to be published on the impact of the exclusion of energy generation from the venture capital schemes on the renewable energy sector, community energy projects and the energy sector. Such a report would need to be published within one year of the Bill becoming an Act. The Government provide a range of support for renewable energy, and that support will double over this Parliament, reaching more than £10 billion in 2020-21. That represents a sixfold increase in spend since 2011-12. The relief schemes I have mentioned serve a different purpose: to help smaller, higher-risk companies across a range of sectors to access the investment they need to grow and create jobs.
Energy generation is typically a lower-risk activity for which investment can be secured without tax relief. Allowing it to qualify for tax relief diverts investment away from the companies that need it most. In addition, from a practical perspective, companies that raised investment for the purpose of energy generation before its exclusion have up to two years to spend the money. A report in just one year’s time would therefore serve little purpose.
A report as suggested by the amendment would have little value from a practical point of view. The exclusion of energy from the venture capital schemes is a principled decision based on the lower risk profile of the activity. The Government therefore believe the amendment is unnecessary, and I hope it will be withdrawn.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
With all the changes the Government are making to the support of energy policy and with the lack of a pot 1—established technologies—contracts for difference round in the near future, does the Minister not feel that projects such as onshore wind are much less likely? This measure has to be taken in the round. It may cause problems because the Government are doing many other things that go against, in particular, onshore wind generation.
Mr Gauke
Where I agree with the hon. Lady is that these things should be looked at in the round. The Government are committed to supporting the investment and innovation needed to achieve a cost-effective transition to a low-carbon economy while ensuring security of energy supply and avoiding unnecessary burdens on businesses and households. We are making great strides towards our commitments, with emissions down 30% since 1990. Support for renewables from taxpayers and bill payers will double over this Parliament, reaching more than £10 billion in 2020-21, as I mentioned. That is a sixfold increase in spend since 2011-12. We have more than trebled our renewable electricity capacity since 2010. In the round, the Government’s record is strong.
We are committed to supporting small and growing businesses. The presence of low-risk, asset-backed investments such as those described today crowds out investment in higher-risk propositions. It is right that the Government act to exclude such investors.
Finance Bill
Kirsty Blackman Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I specifically want to talk about clause 43 in relation to vaccine breakthrough. I have issues with a couple of the Government’s proposals. First, it has been made clear that this measure costs the Government very little. In terms of foreign projections, the removal of the relief does not increase the Treasury’s take by a vast amount.
The explanatory notes on this were incredibly helpful and I really appreciated them, but they seem to be missing a few things. First, they say that only 10 firms claimed the relief, but they do not make it clear how many firms research and develop vaccines. After my slightly rudimentary research, I could find only about 10 firms that research and develop vaccines, which means that all of them claim the relief. Therefore, if I am correct, the uptake is quite high. That could be why companies are choosing to research and develop vaccines. I would appreciate it if the Minister confirmed how many companies research and develop these things. If he does not have that information today, perhaps he could write to me with any details he has on that.
The explanatory notes mention the Ross Fund. I appreciate that the fund is a good thing and that it is good that the Government are financially supporting the development of vaccines, but it seems to me that the fund does not necessarily cover everything that the vaccine relief previously covered. The Ross Fund covers the following: antimicrobial resistance, which is a really important thing to be funding in this day and age; diseases with epidemic potential, which, given what happened with Ebola, is a really important area to be funding; and neglected tropical diseases, which is a fabulous area for the Government to support. It is really important to be putting money into the various areas of research that have previously been neglected.
From the research that I have, it seems that vaccine research relief covers HIV/AIDS, whereas the Ross Fund does not. I would really appreciate it if the Government told whether HIV/AIDS research now falls through a gap, because it is an area that we need to continue to research and for which we do not currently have any vaccine or cure. I do not want it to get lost because companies are no longer able to claim aid or funding for such research.
I will not speak at too much length, as my concerns are around clause 43 and the fact that, although helpful, the explanatory notes left me with quite a few questions.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I want to add my support to clause 42, notwithstanding the important points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), who set out the need for further thinking, perhaps, in the light of the Brexit vote. I was on a different side of the debate from him—only marginally—because I thought that there were concerns about economic risk, but there are certainly opportunities ahead, as well.
We need to ensure that we are ready to explore and realise those opportunities and the Government are absolutely committed to doing that. I hope that the Opposition are as well. It seems that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) is indicating that. We are up for that. As a result, I am perplexed about why clause 42 is not being supported by the Opposition. Such measures were vital when the proposals were first set out, and it is now even more important to put out a clear signal that we are open for business, that we understand business, that we want business to continue to come to the UK and that we want our exporters to thrive and flourish.
The corporation tax level is an important signal and an important driver in that regard. It is noticeable that the Federation of Small Businesses stated at the time of the announcement that it saw clause 42 as an important statement of intent that will provide a boost for affected firms. Small businesses are of course the backbone of our economy, but it is clear that the clause is an important signal for bigger businesses, too. It helps to illustrate and underline that Britain is open for business.
Given the decision made by the public, which I fully respect, it will be very important that we maintain the flow and increase the levels of foreign direct investment. I thought we were exposed in that area for a period of time, and I think that that exposure is still real, but we are currently the biggest destination in Europe for foreign direct investment. We have seen the biggest increase in FDI in projects in the north-west and I want to work with the Government and whichever party is around to ensure that we continue to see that flow. I want to ensure that the success we see in the country continues and that the northern powerhouse can fulfil its full potential. Key initiatives such as the life sciences corridor in Cheshire will require clear signals to businesses in the UK and abroad that we are open and want to move further forward, which is why I will support clause 42 when we vote, as I understand we will.
Finance Bill
Kirsty Blackman Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gauke
Thank you, Mrs Laing. I am grateful for those remarks.
The measures I will outline ensure the simple, clear and fair tax treatment of employment income and benefits, strengthen incentives to choose the cleanest cars and vans, and ensure that those who have used artificial arrangements to avoid paying tax pay their fair share. Given the number of measures selected for debate, I will briefly set out how I will speak on them today. I will first discuss clauses 8 to 11, concerning company car taxation and the van benefit charge. I will then outline clause 7 and clauses 12 to 17, which address tax treatment of income and certain benefits. Finally, I will outline clause 18, which addresses disguised remuneration schemes.
I turn first to clauses 8 to 11. Clause 8 will increase the appropriate percentage for conventionally fuelled cars by three percentage points in 2019-20; it will also widen the tax advantage of ultra-low emission cars over conventionally fuelled cars in 2019-20 compared with previously announced plans. As a result of the changes, in 2019-20 a basic rate taxpayer driving a popular ultra-low emission company car will be £113 better off. Clause 9 makes a minor technical update to ensure the legislation works as is intended in 2017-18 and 2018-19. The update applies to a small number of rare company cars. It is estimated that exposure to nitrogen dioxide is linked with 23,500 deaths annually in the UK, costing approximately £13.3 billion.
As was announced in the autumn statement in 2015, clause 10 retains the three percentage point supplement for diesel company cars until 2021. That will support the UK’s transition from diesel cars to cleaner, zero and ultra-low emission cars. As a result, a basic rate taxpayer with an average ultra-low emission company car will save an additional £150 in 2016-17, compared with an employee who has an average diesel company car.
Clause 11 retains the van benefit charge for zero-emission vans at 20% of the rate paid by conventionally fuelled vans for 2016-17 and 2017-18, rather than increasing it to 40% and 60% as currently planned. That means that a basic rate taxpayer who drives a zero-emission van will save £126 in 2016-17 and £258 in 2017-18. Together, clauses 8 to 11 will incentivise business and employees to take up the cleanest cars and vans. That will help to ensure that the market for those new technologies becomes established in the UK, and to support the UK’s carbon emission and air-quality targets.
In anticipation of what we will hear from the Opposition, let me turn to amendments 2 and 3 to clause 10. The amendments would require the exemption of diesel cars from paying the supplement if they achieve the same level of nitrogen dioxide emissions as petrol cars. I appreciate that hon. Members want to incentivise people to purchase the cleanest cars, but the amendments would only introduce confusion and uncertainty. They are not linked to the wider regulatory programme to achieve the latest air quality standards, even when cars are driven on our roads. Clause 10 retains the supplement until 2021 when those new standards will be mandatory for all new cars. That approach is transparent and easy to understand, and it will give consumers confidence that all new diesel cars are comparable to petrol cars. Our approach incentivises people to purchase the cleanest cars, and in anticipation of what will be said later, I hope that Labour Members will not press the amendments to a vote.
Let me consider those clauses that clarify and simplify the tax treatment of income and certain benefits, and ensure fairness in the tax system. Clause 7 will clarify how the cash equivalents of certain taxable benefits are calculated, and ensure that fair bargain does not apply to those taxable benefits in kind where the level of computing the value of the benefit is set out in statute. The Government have made minor technical changes in amendments 22 to 26, which ensure that the legislation works as intended.
Clause 12 and schedule 2 will provide clarity that all income from sporting testimonials for an employed or previously employed sportsperson will be taxable. However, we are aware that careers in sport can be short, so we have also introduced an exemption for the first £100,000 of income received from a sporting testimonial that is not contractual or customary. The Government believe that that is a fair compromise, and the vast majority of employed sportspersons who have testimonials will not be impacted. Clause 13 introduces a statutory exemption for certain benefits costing up to £50 that employers provide to their employees. That will simplify the tax treatment of those benefits and reduce the administrative burden for employers. To ensure that the exemption is not misused, a £300 annual cap will apply in certain circumstances. That sensible and simplifying measure will reduce burdens on employers and HMRC alike.
Clause 14 will ensure that no individual or business can obtain an unfair tax advantage through claiming tax relief on home-to-work travel and subsistence expenses. It is an established principle in the UK that people are not able to claim tax relief on the cost of ordinary commuting, and the vast majority of workers are not able to do so. Individuals who are engaged through intermediaries—such as umbrella companies and their employers—currently benefit from that relief and the cost of commuting from home to work, simply because of the way they are engaged to work.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Has the Minister considered whether this measure will have a disproportionate impact on rural communities where travel is much more expensive and sometimes an overnight stay is necessary when undertaking those roles?
Mr Gauke
I will say a little more about clause 14, but I believe that this is a matter of fairness. For the vast majority of people, home-to-work costs do not have tax relief, and it is right to apply the same rules across the board. If there is a difference in treatment just because an arrangement is made through an umbrella company or other form of intermediary, clause 14 will put those workers on the same terms as everybody else. That underpins the Government’s commitment to ensure that the tax system is fair and treats all individuals who are doing the same thing in the same way.
Kelvin Hopkins
My hon. Friend suggests that my proposal is Stalinist, but we are talking about a world in which we had several splendid democratically elected Labour Governments after the second world war that did wonderful things. Nobody would call them Stalinist. They submitted themselves to the electorate every five years and were sometimes defeated—sometimes even in this House—so I do not think “Stalinist” is the right word.
I do think, however, that there should be a bigger role for the public sector in regulating employment, making sure that people are properly paid and securely employed, even if they are temporary staff, that taxes are fully paid and that private sector agencies do not rip off both the public purse and employees. I will leave that suggestion with my hon. Friend. I hope that he will bring forward even more radical proposals along the lines that I have suggested.
Kirsty Blackman
I shall be brief, as I know nobody wants a lengthy debate tonight. I have a couple of specific points to make about reviewing the income tax treatment of workers who provide services through intermediaries. We are asking for a review. I understand the Government’s point that they feel that their approach is sensible for the majority of workers and that it is levelling the playing field for the majority of people, but there will be unintended consequences on specific issues and in specific areas, and they are going to be a major problem.
We have mentioned that this will have a disproportionate impact on rural communities. That is partly because of geography, as those communities are further away and it is more difficult for people to make cheap travel arrangements to go there and for people to find reasonably priced overnight accommodation. That will have a disproportionate financial impact. We do not want specialist contractors to choose not to go to a rural community on the basis that it will disproportionately cost them money, as that will mean our rural communities will lose out; they will not have the ability to get whatever it is that needs to be done in that community because the contractor will choose to go somewhere cheaper. That is a major issue, particularly in the oil industry, as has been said, and in the whisky industry. The whisky industry may have specialist contractors that need to go to rural locations in order to do things, and we do not want those areas to be disproportionately affected.
Rob Marris
Some of those lower-paid workers may be working for umbrella companies, and a difference between the wording in new clause 3 and in new clause 1 is that Labour’s new clause 3 mentions umbrella companies. New clause 1 refers to “different types of worker”. Does the hon. Lady envisage that concept as including those who are engaged through intermediary or umbrella companies?
Kirsty Blackman
Absolutely we do. When we talk about “intermediaries” and “different types of worker”, we mean all those who will be impacted by this change in the taxation measures.
Mr Gauke
I am grateful for the various points made in this debate. I will not repeat everything I said in my opening remarks, but I will try to address the questions raised, and we have had plenty of those. Perhaps I should begin by saying how pleased I was to see the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) join us, as one never knows these days who will be on the Labour Front Bench. Given the considerable work that he clearly put into his speech—not forgetting the considerable work put in by Imogen Watson—it would have been a great pity were he not to have been on the Front Bench to ask those questions, so I am delighted to see him.
Kirsty Blackman
I rise to support amendment 183 on the changes to the climate change levy. The UK Government’s idea to have a climate change levy was admirable. It was introduced in 2001, and it has been a positive step. It is completely reasonable that companies should be made to think about their energy usage, and the best way to do that is to tax them on it. The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) made a wide-ranging speech on a series of matters, some of which I was going to speak about, so I will curtail my speech somewhat.
Although reducing companies’ energy consumption and usage is a great idea, it fails to take into account the fact that some methods of generating electricity are better than others, particularly in terms of climate change. We cannot tax energy usage across the board given that energy generated from, say, onshore wind is much cleaner and better than energy generated from, say, a coal-fired power station. Those two things are very different, and it is completely reasonable to have variable tax rates for those two things.
The hon. Lady spoke about some of the impacts that the Government’s energy policy is having on low-carbon energy. This Government do not have a good record on supporting low-carbon energy. Their support for nuclear has been widely reported, but the situation is very difficult for companies that are innovating in providing other forms of low-carbon energy in this ever-changing climate and in the UK Government’s current policy framework.
It was announced in June that the Scottish Government had managed to meet their target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2014. The target was a reduction of 42%, and it happened six years early. That was an excellent achievement for the Scottish Government and for Scotland as a whole, with everyone working together to reach it. However, it will be very difficult for us to keep up that level of achievement with the UK Government’s current energy policy. For example, there is no clarity about when there will be a new pot 1 for contracts for difference. That pot is for onshore wind, which is very important. It is very clear that onshore wind is an established technology for generating electricity cleanly, and the UK Government need to provide greater clarity about when the next CFD round for it will be.
With Brexit, Scotland will have a major problem in that the funding for low-carbon energy and low-carbon energy projects, particularly the groundbreaking ones, has come from the EU. I know that this is slightly outside the remit of this debate, but I would appreciate it if the UK Government looked at whether this funding will continue to be provided because we should continue to innovate in low-carbon energy in Scotland, which has massive natural resources.
Damian Hinds
The climate change levy makes a significant contribution to the Exchequer’s revenues. It had been on a declining path, but with the changes that have come in, its path has been stabilised. It had been providing increasingly poor value for money, partly because a third of its value was going to generators overseas: that generation does not contribute to UK targets, and quite often benefits from subsidies and other benefits at home.
There was also only indirect support for renewables. This is a really important point that goes to the heart of what the hon. Members for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Philip Boswell) were saying. The renewables obligation and contracts for difference are much more effective at providing direct support, at a higher level than the £5.54 per hour, to bring on the generation that we need.
The success of the deployment of renewables in this country paradoxically has an adverse impact on the effectiveness of the CCL exemption, such that by the early 2020s it would not be effective in stimulating new capacity to come on stream. Its value to generators would be declining, because the supply of renewables and therefore of the levy exemption certificates would exceed in volume the total potential demand from eligible customers in business and the public sector.
Kirsty Blackman
If the Minister is saying that the exemption will not be effective after 2020, does he concede that it would therefore be effective to keep it in place now?
Kirsty Blackman
I appreciate the chance to deal with insurance premium tax. Reducing tax was raised by the SNP at some length last year, when the Government increased it by about 3.5%, from 6% to 9.5%. We were a bit concerned that this amounted to an incredible hike with very little warning, possibly setting a precedent.
I want to make it clear that we are not against spending additional money on flood defences. Given the climate change issues that we face and the devastating impact of floods on communities, we think that is a good idea and we completely understand why the UK Government are choosing to spend money on it. My issue is that raising insurance premium tax might be the wrong way of doing so—I do not want people to be discouraged from taking out insurance. The Minister said that the clause might mean only a minor change in people’s bills, but I am concerned less about the 0.5% increase than about the precedent that has been set by what is happening this year and what happened last year. My main fear is that the UK Government will decide on a further increase.
This morning the Chancellor said that the UK economy was affected by the fact that the markets were currently volatile, and that that volatility would continue. In such circumstances, we do not want people to worry about their future finances, and not to take out insurance because the economy is uncertain and they do not know how the financial situation will develop. It is necessary to have home insurance, just as it is necessary to have motor insurance, but premiums have increased significantly, mostly because of problems caused by climate change. Although the average increase will be £1, people who have been hit by flooding are having to pay massive premiums, and the 0.5% increase is likely to have a disproportionate impact on them.
We do not intend to press the clause to a vote, because we do not want Members to have to stay here longer than they have to, but I appreciate the opportunity to speak about it. Let me end by emphasising that our concern relates to the longer term. Although 0.5% is a fairly minor hike, if the amount continues to rise year on year there will be an additional problem for household budgets, and a negative impact every year.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I am pleased to be able to add my contribution to those already made by Members on both sides of the Committee.
As my hon. Friend the shadow Financial Secretary has said, the Bill is rooted in unfairness, and we fear that this tax change may engender further unfairness if it is passed on to customers. Clause 129 increases the standard rate of insurance premium tax from 9.5% to 10%, initially from this October, and all premiums, including those in the special accounting scheme, will be subject to it from February 2017. The Chancellor also announced in the Budget that the funds generated by the increase would be allocated to increased spending on flood defences. What concerns us is how this will affect the insurance market, how it will affect the millions of customers who need access to insurance, and how effectively it will deliver the flood defences that we so desperately need.
This is the third increase in insurance premium tax under the current Chancellor, following increases in 2011 and in last year’s Finance Bill. The first increase was from 5% to 6%, a comparative leap of 20%. Last year’s increase was from 6% to 9.5%, and there was then a 58% leap. This year’s 0.5% increase to 10% is therefore comparatively smaller. Some insurance companies have welcomed the fact that it was not larger, but it follows hot on the heels of the previous change. The frequency of increases is picking up, and that frequency is causing concern.
In March, Ben Flockton of PricewaterhouseCoopers said that of
“concern to many insurers is the prospect of gradual but frequent rate rises.”
David Jordorson, of the Association of British Insurers, said recently that the association had urged
“HM Treasury and HMRC to revisit the arrangements for how rises are implemented”
in order to
“put members on a clearer footing when future rises come”.
Perhaps the Minister will put us straight on whether the Government expect to hold the current rate where it is after the Finance Bill, for the next five years or for just one year—or will we see a further change in the autumn statement? I am sure that the industry, consumer groups and policyholders will be hanging on to our words in this debate.
The latest increase brings the standard rate of the tax up to a total of 10%, which is a doubling—a 100% increase —since 2011. Cumulatively, these three rate rises being passed on to customers would have a real impact on disposable incomes and on policy uptake. We understand that this change will have an impact on 26 million drivers and 20 million households. It will also hit 3 million pet policies and 3 million private medical policies. Our concern is that the industry will pass on this cost to its customers. Moneysavingexpert.com put it bluntly when it said:
“Millions of households and motorists will pay more...a further rise in the cost of pet, car, mobile, contents, buildings and private medical insurance”.
James Dalton, director of general insurance policy at the Association of British Insurers, said:
“Another increase in Insurance Premium Tax would be a raid on the responsible that laser-targets those who do the right thing. It will hit those on low incomes and increase the risk that some people reduce their cover or stop insuring altogether.”
Chas Roy-Chowdhury of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants said that
“the rise will affect anyone who has home or car insurance wherever they live.”
More recently, in the last few weeks, the AA has published its latest British insurance premium index, covering the first few months of 2016. It found that the average quoted “shop-around” premium—that is, the average of the five cheapest quotes for each customer in a variety of scenarios—had jumped by 5.4% to £114.52 a year at the end of March 2016. So the emerging evidence is of an increase in cost of insurance to the customer.
I will come to the issue of flood defences later, but the Chancellor stated in his Budget speech that this measure was also intended to help to fund the cost of flood defences. I want to raise the issue of flood insurance, including that provided through the Flood Re scheme, which is already increasing costs for customers. Of course we on these Benches support the introduction of Flood Re, but insurers are having to pay a total of £180 million to Flood Re, and that is being passed on. In a survey by the Financial Times, seven out of the 10 largest home insurers said they would pass all or some of the levy directly to customers. I understand that 350,000 properties are currently expected to benefit. We believe it is vital that those in flood-prone areas can access the insurance they need, particularly as the instances of flooding as a result of climate change appear to be on the increase.
What will be the impact of the insurance premium tax and the Flood Re levy being passed on to customers? Our concern is the effect on take-up for those on the margins—that is, those hit by other attacks on income in this Finance Bill, in the Chancellor's Budget and, who knows, in his emergency Budget yet to come, as well as those hit by successive cuts to pay, pensions and protection of welfare payments over the past six years. The Government’s policy paper relating to the change in the Bill states:
“The measure is expected to have a small impact on individuals and households purchasing insurance which is not exempt from IPT, if insurers choose to pass on the IPT rate rise to customers”.
I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister what the term “small impact” means. Which individuals and households will be impacted upon? What discussions did the Treasury hold on the likelihood of the increase being passed on to customers, both with insurance providers and with consumer groups?
The Government’s policy paper also says that no equalities impacts have been identified. The Association of British Insurers has highlighted the fact that many families face insurance bills around £100 higher as a result of last year’s increase. We are concerned that this is a tax burden that will ultimately be paid by ordinary people taking the responsible approach and insuring their homes and motor vehicles. What will it mean for those on lower incomes? Will younger or older drivers be disproportionately adversely affected? How will the change’s impact be monitored? Our worry is about the impact of rising costs, contributing to our overall concern about the Finance Bill as a whole. That is why, when the last change to insurance premium tax was discussed in the previous Finance Bill just a few months ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) tabled an amendment.
Oral Answers to Questions
Kirsty Blackman Excerpts(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
The lifetime ISA will be a very popular and successful new saving product precisely because it does not require people to choose between saving for a home or saving for their retirement; they can do both. We are also now looking at ways for people to draw on their savings during their lifetime for particular emergencies, or for when they need bits of money, like they do in the United States with the 401(k) scheme. The lifetime ISA will be a radically new savings product, and it will do what we need to do in this country, which is build a savings culture.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Hands)
Productivity performance in the UK has been weak since the financial crisis, as it has been in all developed countries. The Government published their productivity plan “Fixing the foundations” last year. At the Budget, we announced additional reductions in corporation tax and business rates to incentivise investment, and gave the green light to infrastructure projects such as Crossrail 2 and High Speed 3.
Kirsty Blackman
The Scottish National party has continually argued that the UK economy is in dire need of investment to stimulate productivity. Despite the productivity plan, the Chancellor seems determined to persevere with policies that stifle productivity. What policies have the UK Government enacted that will encourage an increase in productivity?
Greg Hands
The hon. Lady is right in saying that there is an issue in relation to productivity in this country, but there is an issue across all major developed economies. Over the past year, productivity growth in this country was about 1%, which compares with 0.9% across the G7. On specific measures, we have established the National Infrastructure Commission, protected science funding at the Budget and spending review, introduced the Housing and Planning Bill, announced the apprenticeship levy, which is coming in, and announced a £100 billion infrastructure programme over the course of this Parliament.