Finance (No. 3) Bill (Seventh sitting)
Kirsty Blackman ExcerptsThursday 6th December 2018
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Finance Act 2019 View all Finance Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 6 December 2018 - (6 Dec 2018)
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I appreciate that the Minister is providing all this information in answer to issues raised by the amendments. Given that he has all the information, it would be great if he just put it into a review, as the amendments would require, so that we could see it written down in six months’ time.
Robert Jenrick
I take the hon. Lady’s point, but the information is mostly already in the public domain. It is not clear to me what information is not available. With respect to air quality, the Government will very shortly publish our ambitious clean air strategy. I encourage her and other hon. Members who, perfectly understandably, want to scrutinise our clean air commitments to pay attention to that document and scrutinise the Environment Secretary at that point. No doubt he will come to the House to make an announcement on the strategy.
The hon. Member for Norwich South also mentioned London. London already has a separate comprehensive funding settlement from the Department for Transport, which includes measures to deliver compliance with legal air quality limits. The Mayor has significant powers to take additional measures. Londoners also receive further funding for ultra low emission vehicles such as taxis. Indeed, measures in the Bill support the uptake of ultra low emission taxis. We took those measures a year early, as we will discuss later, and they have had a significant impact on the number of taxis on the streets of London. There are now between 500 and 600 electric or ultra low emission taxis that did not exist at the beginning of the year, incentivised by the measures taken by the Treasury. We are also supporting low emission buses and charging infrastructure. The Committee has already discussed the £200 million public investment in charging infrastructure, which we hope will spur at least a further £200 million of private investment. That will support charging infrastructure in all parts of the United Kingdom.
I hope hon. Members respect the fact that we consider the funding settlement for London’s roads as separate from that for the rest of the United Kingdom. That is a long-standing convention. We occasionally provide additional money. For instance, in the Budget the Chancellor provided more than £400 million for potholes. He included London in that, so London boroughs are able to take advantage of that money, but in general the funding settlement for London’s roads is separate from the negotiation with respect to Highways England.
I urge the Committee to reject the amendments, as I believe the reports they would require are unnecessary. The changes outlined in the clause will ensure that the Government continue to support motorists with the cost of living while ensuring that they continue to make a fair contribution to the public finances. As a result of our decision to hypothecate VED revenues, we will see a major increase in investment in our strategic roads, which I hope will benefit everyone in all parts of the United Kingdom. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Sir Robert Syms
Apart from paying the levy, the road haulage industry pays considerable sums of tax on fuel; it therefore pays quite a lot into the Exchequer for the provision of roads. I would make another important point: almost every good that we have in this country travels at some point on a road haulage vehicle. Almost all of what someone buys in a supermarket for Sunday lunch travels in such a vehicle. There is no such thing as a painless tax. If we raise the cost of vehicles delivering goods in this country, the costs are raised for supermarkets and businesses and that is passed on in the form of higher prices and inflation. There is a balance to be struck.
The other point is that the British economy has been growing since 2009-10. As it grows, there are more vehicles on the road, and that is a difficulty. The real way to deal with climate change is probably to crash the economy, so that unemployment shoots up and vehicles come off the roads. It is a problem that, if we have the economy growing, there are more vehicles on the road. On the whole, the solution is technological, both in the development of the levy—the hon. Member for Norwich South made one or two suggestions for that—and also in the engines and the information that people get this days. There has been a big improvement. The biggest incentive that there ought to be for the industry is to replace vehicles more regularly because, in the end, that will probably have more impact on climate change.
I do not think that the solution to this problem is to increase costs. There are technological solutions that I am sure will come to help with all of our concerns about climate change.
Kirsty Blackman
If we are going to disincentivise people from using HGVs or charge them more for using HGVs, we need to make sure that we have a positive route with alternative methods of transport. There has been a massive increase in the number of light goods vehicles, which is negative if we end up with older diesel models.
We could develop the rail freight network. I understand that it is pretty difficult for those who are looking to increase rail freight to get time on the lines because of the number of passenger trains. Solutions to assist that would be very helpful in ensuring that freight is moved around the UK in the least carbon-emitting way possible.
Subsection (6)(b) relates to Euro 6. It describes the definition of Euro 6, saying that it is as in the EC directive. I am keen for the Government to lay out what would happen about the development of new standards after Brexit and any transition period. Is it their intention that we would have our own standards on vehicle emissions? If so, how much does the Minister believe it will cost to assess vehicles? What would be the cost of UK-EU regulatory divergence, which will result in issues for car manufacturers?
Alternatively, do the Government intend that we should not diverge from using the European Commission directive standards? Obviously technology is developing and there will be new standards to which we should peg our decisions on tax rates. If the UK Government plan not to have their own assessment centre, with regulatory divergence, do they plan to continue to follow EC directives? What preparation are the Government making in that case to scrutinise or comment on the directives, given that we will not be in the room after Brexit, and will therefore not be able to influence the standards, either to support our car manufacturers or secure the best standards for the British public and get improved air quality?
I understand that the Minister may not have the answer at his fingertips, but I hope he can say something.
Robert Jenrick
I shall try to respond to the many points that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole in part answered the challenge from the hon. Member for Norwich South as to whether hauliers pay their fair share. It is worth remembering that they pay a range of taxes, as my hon. Friend pointed out. They pay the levy that we are discussing and vehicle excise duties. They also pay tax on fuel. Taken as a package, hauliers pay a considerable amount of tax. British hauliers as an industry are highly taxed, going by European and international comparisons. The reforms mean that some hauliers will pay more. The VED system is based on both weight and axles, so to some extent it reflects wear and tear on the roads, although I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Norwich South that HGVs make a significant impact on the roads. I did not realise it was 100,000 times that of a Ford Focus, but that puts things in perspective.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the HGV levy was specifically hypothecated to tackle such issues as potholes and strategic roads. It is not. However, as I have described, the VED system will be, which will significantly increase the amount of investment that the country makes in roads at every level: £28.8 billion is the spending envelope for roads investment announced by the Chancellor in the Budget, and £25 billion of it will be spent on strategic roads in the road investment strategy that will be announced later next year. That will be about 170% of the first road investment strategy, so there is almost double the amount of investment going into roads to tackle congestion and improve strategic roads in all parts of the country.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North made a valid point about the European standards. It is our intention to remain closely aligned to those. That seems sensible and it is our intention in a number of respects, such as climate change, emissions and carbon budgets, as is indeed set out elsewhere in the Bill. For example, we have not yet made a final decision on carbon trading, but we shall monitor it and review the matter. If I can give the hon. Lady any further information I will write to her to set out the position of the Department for Transport.
On the broader question of why we are not using the VED system for HGVs to encourage greater take-up of zero-emission or ultra-low emission HGVs, it comes back to the point made by the hon. Lady: currently there are very few commercially available ultra-low emission alternatives for HGV drivers, which prevents the broad uptake of new vehicles. Clearly, we would like to do all we can to stimulate the market and see rapid progress, but we have to be mindful of that. Through the Road to Zero strategy that was published earlier this year, the Government have committed to working with the industry to reduce HGV greenhouse gas emissions significantly by 2025. The strategy sets out the Government’s plans to use a variety of different tools to meet that commitment.
The hon. Member for Norwich South made a number of important points about HGVs and road safety. I will write to him on that and find out what information I can about DFT’s work, because it is important that we take note and see what can be done to improve road safety, particularly as the number of vehicles going down smaller roads and country lanes as a result of online shopping is becoming more important. Through the Road to Zero strategy and other initiatives, DFT is paying attention to how we can improve the last mile of delivery to tackle air quality and reduce the number of vehicles on our roads.
The clause introduces a lower rate of HGV levy for vehicles that meet the latest emission standard, and a higher rate for vehicles that do not. As we have discussed, the change will incentivise hauliers to move to cleaner, less-polluting vehicles. It is only right that everyone plays their part in protecting our natural environment so that we leave a cleaner, greener Britain for our children. HGVs currently account for approximately 20% of harmful nitrogen oxide emissions from road transport but only 5% of total miles travelled, so they will play an important part in tackling the problem.
The changes made by the clause will reduce HGV levy rates by 10% for vehicles that meet the latest emission standards, reflecting the fact that they generate 80% less NOx emissions than the older HGVs. The clause will also increase rates by 20% for HGVs that do not meet those standards. Many hauliers will pay less as more companies move to cleaner lorries—we have introduced it to improve air quality and not to raise revenue.
On amendments 115 to 118, to which the hon. Member for Norwich South spoke, the Government have published a tax information impact note outlining the impact assessment of these reforms, including the forecasted revenue effects, which have been certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility. I believe those amount to £25 million over the scorecard period. These reforms to the HGV levy are part of wider action by the Government to tackle challenges in the areas highlighted by the amendments. Isolating the impact of the HGV levy reforms would be extremely challenging and, I suspect, of limited use, as they cannot be separated from other actions the Government is taking in these areas.
The Government’s draft clean air strategy sets out an annual reporting process for the monitoring of air pollution, which is the appropriate mechanism for assessing the effectiveness of those changes and others over time, rather than introducing a new method to review it, as proposed by the amendments. I therefore urge the Committee to reject the amendments. The changes outlined in the measure will ensure that both foreign and domestic HGVs play their part in meeting the Government’s air quality targets.
Finance (No. 3) Bill (Eighth sitting)
Kirsty Blackman Excerpts(6 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 104, in clause 60, page 44, line 17, at end insert—
“(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects of a reduction in air passenger duty rates from 1 April 2020 and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(4) A review under subsection (3) must in consider the effects of a reduction on—
(a) airlines,
(b) airport operators,
(c) other businesses, and
(d) passengers.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effects of a reduction in air passenger duty.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 120, in clause 60, page 44, line 17, at end insert—
“(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects of the changes made in subsection (1) and related matters specified in subsections (4) and (5) and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the coming into force of the changes.
(4) The matter specified in this subsection is the revenue effects of the changes.
(5) The matter specified in this subsection is the effects of the changes on—
(a) CO2 emissions,
(b) the United Kingdom’s ability to comply with its third, fourth and fifth carbon budgets,
(c) air quality standards,
(d) air travel demand, and
(e) air traffic movements.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the revenue, environmental and certain other impacts of the changes made by Clause 60.
Amendment 121, in clause 60, page 44, line 17, at end insert—
“(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects of the changes made in subsection (1) together with the matter specified in subsection (4) and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the coming into force of the changes.
(4) The matter specified in this subsection is to assess whether the rate for privately-owned and privately-chartered jets is reflective of environmental costs relative to the other rates and bands of air passenger duty.”
This amendment would require the Government to review the extent to which rates of air passenger duty for privately-chartered and privately-owned aircraft reflect environmental costs.
Clause stand part.
Kirsty Blackman
I will not speak for a terribly long time, because I am sure the Committee is not keen on being detained for any longer than necessary.
The devolution of air passenger duty has not been properly completed, so the Scottish Government are unable to put in place air departure tax, which we committed to introducing, or to make our proposed changes first to halve that tax and then to remove it completely. We are keen to do that because we believe it is important that we can attract people to visit, live and work in our country, and those steps were in the manifesto we were voted in on in 2016.
Complete devolution has not happened due to an issue with our exemption for the highlands and islands. I understand that the UK Government and the Scottish Government are working on that. It would have been great if it had been dealt with before, because we hoped to have air departure tax in place in April. It has not been dealt with, but I get the impression that people are still around the table trying to solve the issue, which is good news.
In lieu of APD being properly devolved and our having the powers to make our planned changes in Scotland, we support a UK-wide reduction in APD. That is why we tabled amendment 104, which would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to
“review the effects of a reduction in air passenger duty rates from 1 April 2020”—
we chose that date because the industry has asked us to ensure that any change in rates is not made immediately—
“and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months”.
The review would have to
“consider the effects of a reduction on—
(a) airlines,
(b) airport operators,
(c) other businesses, and
(d) passengers.”
One of the key issues for us is that the comparatively high taxes in the UK sometimes cause difficulties for airlines and airport operators. If we take into account VAT, air passenger duty and other taxes, the UK is one of the more highly taxed places to visit as a tourist. We are keen to see changes so that we can secure the routes we have and run more routes.
Given the remoteness of some communities in Scotland, it is important that we have good access to flights. I live in Aberdeen, which is about two and a half or three hours’ drive from Glasgow and Edinburgh. There are international flights out of Aberdeen, but not as many as I would like—there are lots of places we cannot get to unless we drive to Glasgow, Edinburgh or even further afield. I have previously looked at flying from Newcastle to get a better range of flights.
I would appreciate it if the Minister, if he cannot accept the amendment, talked a bit about what he thinks would be the impact on airlines, airport operators, other businesses and passengers of reducing air passenger duty. If he does not want to talk about that because it is not the Government’s policy to reduce air passenger duty, it would be interesting to hear why it is not their policy given my concerns. We are calling for a review because the amendment of the law resolution does not allow us to change it in a serious way. I hope I have laid out the Scottish National party’s position clearly.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
With your leave, Mr Howarth, I will speak to amendments 120 and 121, and press them to a vote if necessary, before moving on to other significant questions that we feel need answering in relation to the clause. As numerous environmental non-governmental organisations, scientists and even the chair of the Committee on Climate Change have observed, the Government are failing to tackle the climate crisis that is already upon us, and we believe that that is reflected in their policy on air travel. There is an awkward mismatch between our world-leading climate change legislation and our policy and prevailing political attitudes towards aviation.
The purpose of amendment 120 is to force the Government to share with Parliament the impact, or the lack thereof, of their proposed changes to air passenger duty on a variety of environmental concerns. The Committee will be aware that the projected impact of climate change poses severe risks, not just to the natural environment but to the prosperity of the British nation and the welfare of the people we represent in the House.
Aviation has a significant and growing impact on climate change. Emissions from the sector rose by 1.2% in 2016. It currently represents about 7% of the UK’s total emissions yet, on current projections, that figure will reach 25% by 2050 as a result of increases in aviation demand and carbon reduction in other sectors. That is because aviation currently enjoys a uniquely generous target under our national framework for reducing emissions through to 2050—namely, it is not expected to make any contribution in our carbon budgets to those reductions, and is instead required to conform to a level of emissions in 2050 that are no higher than 2005 levels, which is 37.5 megatonnes of carbon dioxide. That is known as the Committee on Climate Change planning assumption for aviation. That generous target is in recognition of the difficulty of decarbonising air travel through technology and operational improvement, and of the utility and social value of air travel for those who are lucky enough to use it.
Department for Transport aviation forecasts show that UK aviation emissions are currently on course to exceed even that generous limit, thus potentially jeopardising our ability to meet our overall climate change targets in the form of the fourth and fifth carbon budgets. The Committee on Climate Change has repeatedly called on the Government to develop a robust domestic mitigation policy framework for international aviation emissions for flights taking off from UK airports. Most recently, its 2017 and 2018 progress reports in Parliament highlighted the need for a new strategy and new policies to ensure UK aviation emissions are at about 2005 levels in 2050. In its 2018 assessment of the Government’s clean growth strategy, it warned that they are falling far short of the necessary action. It noted that no progress has been made on this requirement.
The Committee on Climate Change is currently working to update its advice to the Government on mitigating aviation emissions. It is due to report on that in the spring—we await that with interest. One aspect of its guidance that is unlikely to change and is highly salient to the clause is the recognition that the UK’s participation in international mitigation programmes for aviation emissions, such as the International Civil Aviation Organisation’s CORSIA—carbon offsetting and reduction scheme for international aviation—agreement to offset growth from 2020 and the EU’s emissions trading scheme will simply not be sufficient to keep UK aviation emissions within safe limits, as defined by the Committee on Climate Change.
Likewise, even if some fairly heroic assumptions are made about technology, operational improvements and the uptake of genuinely sustainable biofuels, the projected growth in demand for air travel is expected to outstrip these efficiency gains, causing emissions to rise above the safe limit. In 2009, the Committee on Climate Change advised the Government that:
“Deliberate policies to limit demand below its unconstrained level are therefore essential if the target is to be met.”
That has remained its formal position ever since.
The statutory advice to Government by the committee—renowned, by the way, as among the best climate change advisers in the world—is therefore that the growth in demand for UK air travel must be limited if our climate change targets are to be met. That is clear. However, no Government, least of all this one, has yet proposed any such policies. On the contrary, this Government have acted to remove constraints to growth in UK air traffic, such as by approving a third runway at Heathrow Airport without any corresponding measures to meet climate change commitments.
That is why we seek through amendment 120 to compel the Government to review air passenger duty, its effect on the demand for air travel and the consequent effect on greenhouse gas emissions. That is not to say that APD is the only lever that the Government have, but it is incumbent on them to make it clear how they will achieve the climate objectives agreed by consensus of the House. Perhaps the Minister will answer some questions—I am sure the Committee on Climate Change will be interested in hearing the answers.
What impact do APD rates have on demand today? How high would APD rates need to be, or what other measures would have to be in place, to constrain growth in emissions to within the safe limits advised by the Committee on Climate Change? Was that even a consideration of the Government when developing the Bill? Assuming that the Minister agrees it is indeed the Government’s goal, he might say that APD is not the best or most equitable route to achieve that goal, but we need to be clear that there is another route. The answers we hope to receive will help us all as legislators to decide whether APD and the suggested rate changes are indeed an effective mechanism to achieve the Government’s stated policy, or whether alternative measures would be more economically efficient and fiscally progressive.
We understand that limiting growth in demand for air travel is politically fraught, and that important social justice dimensions must be considered when designing any policies to achieve that aim. The issue, however, cannot be ducked forever. The Government have been, and continue to be, remiss in their duties by failing to make any assessment of the potential for different fiscal measures or other policy approaches to constrain UK aviation emissions in line with Committee on Climate Change guidance.
Modal shift from air to rail is an important feature of nearly all decarbonisation scenarios intended to deliver zero net emissions by the middle of the century, as per the UK commitment under the Paris agreement. At the moment, however, it is much cheaper to travel from London to Edinburgh by plane than by train. That is in part a product of the chronic failure of Britain’s ill-advised experiment with the privatisation of our railways, but there is an argument that it is also due to tax advantages enjoyed by aviation over other modes of transport, which brings us back to the clause.
Under international air service agreements, it is prohibited to tax aviation fuel—an anachronism from the earliest days of international aviation, when only a handful of passenger planes were in the sky and Governments sought to do all they could to nurture this exciting new economic sector. Seventy years later, more than 23,000 aircraft are in the global fleet, and yet this highly mature industry continues to enjoy tax-free fuel, a perk it has retained through a combination of lobbying and the structural difficulties of levying a tax on an activity that, by its nature, crosses national boundaries.
That anomaly is the subject of intense debate in France, where motorists are rightly pointing out the gross disparity between the high rates of duty in the form of a carbon tax levied on petrol and diesel at the pump, and the total absence of taxation on aviation fuel. Former French environment Minister, Nicolas Hulot, last week joined calls for kerosene to be taxed. Serving members of the French Government say that they are now speaking with the European Commission.
In addition to duty-free fuel, airline tickets, planes, parts, repairs and fuel are all zero-rated for VAT, alongside items such as baby clothes and wheelchairs. There is also the duty-free shopping in airports. Given that history, the price of air travel does not reflect the environmental damage caused by flight. Taxing air travel appropriately is clearly a difficult political problem to solve, and I want to make it clear that we do not advocate that such travel should become a privilege available only to the rich. However, it is important to understand the social justice dimensions of the challenge clearly.
APD has been criticised in the past as a blunt instrument. That may be true, but it is overall a fiscally progressive tax in the sense that it is mostly collected from households at the upper end of the income spectrum. Government survey data suggests that about half of British residents do not take any flights in a given year, while about a fifth say they never fly. Research suggests that 70% of all flights by UK residents are taken by 15% of the population—the so-called frequent fliers. That group probably includes many people in this room. Only 1% of the general population fly more than seven times a year, but the richest 5% of households fly 13 times a year. Growth in demand for air travel is likewise being driven by the UK’s wealthiest residents. Perhaps the Minister can share any official figures the Government hold.
In any event, to avoid catastrophic global warming, we must collectively limit carbon emissions from aviation. Ordinary people taking occasional family holidays or visiting relatives abroad should not be the priority for any policy designed to curb demand growth.
Kirsty Blackman
The hon. Gentleman makes a strong case for the amendments. Given that more information is better, we are happy to support them. For the avoidance of doubt, I would love to stop flying every week. An independent Scotland would mean we could do that, and it would reduce our carbon footprint.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
I will respond to as many comments as I can. I will come to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, but we agreed and legislated to devolve air passenger duty to the Scottish Government. The delay in so doing is unfortunate—it is not what we wished to happen—but it is a result of the Scottish Government’s asking us to postpone the implementation of devolution. They did so for the perfectly understandable reason that they wished to pursue the measure with respect to the highlands and islands, but it was essentially their decision, which we respected in agreeing to postpone the turning on of devolution, if that is the right phrase, at their suggestion.
Kirsty Blackman
Yes, but the UK Government were trying to hand APD over in such a way that the highlands and islands exemption would no longer exist, so it would have been completely deficient and would not have operated in the way we hoped or, presumably, the way it was intended to work when its devolution was first mooted.
Clive Lewis
I want to raise a couple of things before we vote on amendments 120 and 121. The Committee on Climate Change has clearly stated that we are heading towards a substantial breach of the generous headroom that has been provided for aviation in the UK. The Government are going to overshoot that, to use a pun. There is a pressing climate emergency on this planet. As we speak, millions of people—many of them in the world’s poorest countries—are already being affected by climate change. My dad is from Grenada, and he has retired there. People there, and in the West Indies generally, cannot get insurance as a result of the hurricanes that destroy vast swathes of the islands year in, year out, because of climate change. I feel as though we are hearing once again from the Government about business as usual, even though a climate emergency is taking place.
I understand the APD. It is not designed as an environmental tax or a demand management tool; it is a revenue raiser. Given that we find ourselves heading towards a breach of the headroom that the Committee on Climate Change has provided, surely the Government should be looking at ways to control and push down demand for flights, so that we can begin to make a real impact on our commitments to tackling climate change. Will the Minister tell the Committee whether he plans to join our French counterparts in lobbying for tax reform on kerosene, as they will shortly talk about with the EU Commission? It seems to me that the aviation industry has enjoyed these 70-year-old tax perks and is now an established sector, but one that has yet to fully play its part in tackling climate change. This country can show leadership on that, starting with the Treasury.
Kirsty Blackman
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 120, in clause 60, page 44, line 17, at end insert—
“(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects of the changes made in subsection (1) and related matters specified in subsections (4) and (5) and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the coming into force of the changes.
(4) The matter specified in this subsection is the revenue effects of the changes.
(5) The matter specified in this subsection is the effects of the changes on—
(a) CO2 emissions,
(b) the United Kingdom’s ability to comply with its third, fourth and fifth carbon budgets,
(c) air quality standards,
(d) air travel demand, and
(e) air traffic movements.”.—(Clive Lewis.)
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the revenue, environmental and certain other impacts of the changes made by Clause 60.
Kirsty Blackman
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech in which he is talking about a lot of sensible measures to reduce waste. I just want to say that the matter covered in this aspect of the Bill is devolved, so if he presses the amendment to a vote, the Scottish National party will not take part in it.
Clive Lewis
I thank the hon. Lady—her point is taken on board.
Such a beneficial undertaking would help both businesses and households to reduce drastically their waste streams and so cut their work-related and living costs. It would also go a very long way to helping the UK to meet its energy and greenhouse gas emission targets on the way to becoming a zero-waste, zero-carbon economy. As well as securing existing jobs and helping to create many new ones in the reuse, repair and recycling sectors, adopting the amendments that we are calling for would undoubtedly help to protect urban, suburban and natural environments where illegal waste dumping continues.
Will the Minister tell us how he means to address the very serious concerns of the Environmental Industries Commission and its members about the growing gap between the lower rate and the higher rate of this tax? The existing gap is already causing significant problems in the industry, with some operators presenting for the lower rate inert waste that actually contains asbestos fibres and therefore should be subject to the higher rate. How does the Minister intend to address that imbalance? In the EIC’s view, which is shared by Labour and a number of prominent environmental and countryside non-governmental organisations, the gap should be closed and not made wider, so that the tax acts as a deterrent to illegal waste disposal of all types and so benefits the public purse and society at large in significant environmental ways.
That being the case, in the absence of significant assurances from the Minister, we will struggle to support the clause as it stands. However, I would like to give the Minister the opportunity to provide us both with those assurances and some answers to the questions that we have posed. I look forward to his response.
Robert Jenrick
The clause makes changes to ensure that penalties may be raised against businesses registered for the soft drinks industry levy that do not submit a quarterly return or fail to submit a quarterly return on time. The changes ensure that a penalty can still be raised for non-payment of the soft drinks industry levy in the event that certain provisions in the Bill are enacted.
The soft drinks industry levy was announced at Budget 2016. The levy commenced on 6 April 2018 and has been successful in its stated objective of driving reformulation, to such an extent that over half of all drinks by volume that would have been in scope of the levy have now been reformulated, and in fact were reformulated even before the tax came into effect. This measure will support that success by allowing penalties to be issued for late returns and non-submission of returns for accounting periods ending after 1 April 2019, should they be required.
Kirsty Blackman
I appreciate what the Minister says about the effects of the soft drinks industry levy, but it still does not apply to milk-based drinks. Will the Government consider extending the levy to milk-based drinks, given that it has been so successful?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Lady makes a valid point. When we announced the policy, we said that we would consider milk-based sugary drinks in 2020, which is when more information, including Public Health England data, will be available to inform that decision. We have reiterated that commitment, so there will be a review in just over a year, which could lead to such a decision, although we have no plans to extend the levy at this moment.
The changes made by the clause will help to provide a proportionate and fair penalty regime and to drive compliance. The changes will affect only soft drinks industry levy-registered businesses that do not submit a quarterly return and payment by the due date. Furthermore, although the clause gives us the powers to act, at present there is no evidence of fraud or non-compliance with the soft drinks industry levy on any material scale.
Clause 67 makes changes to amend section 1 of the Isle of Man Act 1979, to add the soft drinks industry levy to the list of common duties. It will ensure that the movement of liable soft drinks between the UK and the Isle of Man will not be seen as either an import or an export under the levy, as long as the levy rates of the UK and the Isle of Man remain aligned. This change will have effect from 1 April next year.
Finance (No. 3) Bill (Sixth sitting)
Kirsty Blackman Excerpts(6 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
First, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) and I are two very different people. He is a lot taller, has dark hair and is a Conservative Member of Parliament. Lots of people have made this mistake over time. He also has very different views from mine on Brexit.
To follow up on some of the issues raised, I am comfortable supporting the Opposition amendment; it makes sense to ask for this information. A couple of matters were raised during the debate. It is important that reasonable VAT guidance is given to organisations. As we have previously discussed in Committee, people can only pay the correct tax if they understand how the tax system works. If they do not have the appropriate guidance, it is difficult for them to ensure that they pay the right VAT.
It is clear that the Government and HMRC are falling short in the information that they communicate to the companies and organisations that are expected to jump through these hoops. It would be useful if the Government looked at that and ensured that they improve the information they are providing to companies and organisations, so that they can better understand their liabilities and how to comply with them.
Lastly, in relation to discussions around the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde mentioned the changes from making tax digital and the impact of that on companies that are finding it more difficult to navigate the system. Another possible impact, depending on what happens with any withdrawal agreement, is that move from acquisition VAT to import VAT, which would also have a significant impact on companies, because they would have to pay significantly more money to allow them to do things differently.
I was pleased that the Government moved on that point after sustained pressure on them through the passage of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill. I appreciate that they agreed to put in place a deferment scheme in the event of no deal; that is positive. However, we do not yet know what the deal will look like. Could we have more commitment from the Government about smoothing that path, if there is to be change from acquisition to import VAT?
Obviously I would rather there was no change and we all stayed in a customs and VAT union, with common VAT as the preferred option. If there is to be any change, will the Government reassure us that companies that will be provided with as much support as they can, in order to make that change without the cash-flow impact suggested by organisations such as the British Retail Consortium?
Mel Stride
Before I get into more general points on the clause, I will turn to some specific issues raised by Members, starting with the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. I entirely take her points about the distinction between her and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South. The differences are quite stark in all respects, though I am not sure to whose benefit that is.
The hon. Lady is entirely right to suggest that we need good guidance on these issues. I should point out that a primary focus of the proposed change is to ensure that we do not, under the existing arrangements, have a number of construction companies falling due to VAT and going over the threshold. That does bring unwanted complexity for those who would not otherwise be in that situation. It is worth bearing in mind that the reason behind the measure is trying to avoid drawing ever more businesses in that sector into the VAT regime.
The hon. Lady also reminded us of the discussions that we had at length on the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, when most of us were all together.
Kirsty Blackman
It is not our position that the UK should leave the common VAT area, but we support both Labour amendments, because it is sensible that we have more information about all these provisions, so that the House can take better-informed decisions.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am extremely grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention and entirely agree with it.
On the access of financial services to the single market once we leave the EU, under the terms of what the Government have negotiated—that single market access will almost certainly be denied unless the equivalence provisions prove adequate, although most people expect them not to be—the Government’s advice to firms in the UK is to set up subsidiaries in the EU. It was reported to me in meetings yesterday in the City that there is concern that when those subsidiaries are created, the connected UK entities will not be able to enter VAT groups in the UK, which would therefore trigger a substantial tax liability in order for firms to comply with the Government’s own advice on market access to the EU. The Minister may not be able to answer that now, but I want to put it on the record.
I call on all Committee members to support both amendments today so that we can get a clear and full picture of the wider impact of the measures on the future VAT policy approach outside the EU and on closing our own VAT gap here in the UK.
Peter Dowd
As long as that? Ten minutes? My word.
I should point out that, under a more active Government—one not simply going through the motions—these measures would already have been taken into account, acted upon and been on offer for proper scrutiny during this debate. Nevertheless, I hope the Minister will see the benefits of the review as set out in our amendment and agree that it is worth while—or that Members will choose to support amendment 98 to see that it is implemented. That brings our amendment on this particular matter to a close. Cheers.
Kirsty Blackman
I rise to speak to amendment 103 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South, but I would also like to speak a little more widely about the clause and the Labour amendments. First, I would like to ask the Minister a question about the post duty point dilution, which was in the Red Book. Hopefully, he can answer or get inspiration during the course of the debate. The changes do not appear to be in the legislation, so it would be useful if the Minister could explain when the legislative changes to post duty point dilution will take effect. I understand that the hope is that it will be put into legislation to be enacted in April 2020, but it would be useful if we could have an idea of the legislative process to ensure that those changes are made. I have been lobbied heavily on this by one of my constituents. I know it is important to a lot of people and that the Government have to their credit committed to making changes in the autumn Budget 2017.
Returning to our earlier discussion, I am not clear what the Government are trying to do with the changes to alcohol taxation. Are they trying to incentivise good behaviour; are they trying to disincentivise bad behaviour; or are they trying to generate revenue for the Exchequer? It is important for the Government to clarify that and accept the Labour amendment on the revenue impact on the Exchequer and on public health. That would make a big difference, because we would be clear about the Government’s intentions and what the Government expect to achieve.
On public health, people who want to get drunk quickly often drink high-strength ciders. It is important the changes focus on people who are not drinking for pleasure in the main, but who are drinking to get as drunk as they possible can. Those are the alcohol deaths we are trying to combat in Scotland with the new minimum unit pricing we introduced, which is a clear and well-intentioned public health change. Minimum unit pricing is all about making sure that high-strength alcohols that can be bought very cheaply are increased in price, so that people cannot get hold of them as easily. We predict that we will see a reduction in alcohol deaths as a result of the changes to legislation in Scotland.
What do the Government expect will be the impact of their legislation, particularly the extreme impact on people who are dying from alcohol misuse? What numbers do they expect to see as a result of the changes? If the Government accept Labour’s amendments, it would be useful if the review included the number of people whom they expect to save so that we can measure them against that.
Lastly, it is important that the Government tax this stuff and increase the tax rates as inflation increases. We want the Government to take a step back and have a holistic look at the entire system and explain why they are taxing things in the way that they are, rather than tweak and bodge and make changes year on year, as often happens in this place, so that we end up with something that is unwieldy and does not fulfil the intentions of the Bill in the first place, let alone the intentions of the world as we see it. Will the Minister provide answers?
Sir Robert Syms
The Government have sensible policies on this. We debated an amendment earlier today about securing jobs in the North sea when there are relatively few jobs on oil rigs. The hospitality industry is one of the biggest employers in the United Kingdom. It is also very important for the tourist industry. The Government have been constantly keeping taxes under review to see what gets a reasonable amount of income and what is fair for consumers.
We also have to understand that we have been through a difficult economic period and incomes have not risen as much as one would like. One of the disadvantages of putting up some of these prices is that it will affect not middle class people, but some of those on the lowest incomes who have every right to enjoy a drink. I therefore think that the Government policy is perfectly sensible.
Kirsty Blackman
I agree that the hospitality industry is incredibly important, particularly to tourism. However, the oil and gas industry supports 135,000 jobs and is also very important to the livelihoods it supports.
Sir Robert Syms
I am sure it is, but I suspect the hospitality industry is 10 times that. The other factor about the drinks industry generally is that it is very regionally diverse, with the scotch industry in Scotland, and wine, cider and beer producers. We all have representations from the owners of breweries, which employ people and are sometimes very important parts of the local economy. We have all had representations from people who run public houses, which are also central to the community. One of the worst things that has happened over the past few decades is the number of public houses that have closed, which has had a material impact on many people and communities. This is a matter of balance, and the Government may be wrong or they may be right, but I think they are more likely to be right because their approach is more likely to secure jobs in the hospitality and brewing industries, and to achieve a proper balance so that people can enjoy a meal or a drink out.
There is a serious alcohol issue, but the producers of wine and beer label things very clearly to show the strength of alcohol. There is a strong “Drinkaware” campaign, so it is not difficult for people to find out the impact of alcohol, but we know there is a hard core of heavy drinkers, many of whom use A&Es and ambulances. It costs about half a million pounds a year to keep an ambulance on the road, and many of them are disproportionately used by people who abuse alcohol. The focus, if there is any focus, ought to be on addiction services and trying to intervene with those who abuse alcohol rather than on the vast majority of people who enjoy a drink.
The hon. Member for Bootle, in his amusing speech—we will miss him on Thursday when he is no doubt raising a cheer to Cicero in whatever he is doing—noted that the industry contributes substantially to the Treasury. Some of those billions of pounds have to go to the NHS because of drinking, but the industry also generates a lot of money for good causes and things that the Government need to provide.
This is a matter of balance, and I think the Government have it right. There may come a time when prices have to go up. If incomes start to rise more substantially—we hope that will be a factor in a few years and that there is evidence that pay is picking up a bit—it may be time to review the taxes, but I think the Government have got this one right.
Robert Jenrick
I gather there may be a vote in a few moments’ time, but I will begin by addressing, in no particular order some of the points that have been raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. We are interested in the Scottish and indeed the Welsh Government’s actions on minimum unit pricing. It is fair to say that the jury is still out on whether that has been effective, but we will be watching with interest, as will the Department of Health and Social Care and Public Health England, and that will inform the decisions we take at future Budgets.
The hon. Lady asked about post duty point dilution. This is an issue that she has rightly highlighted, and a number of the producers who are likely to be affected by this and who are based in the UK will no doubt be asking the question she has asked. We intend to give this further consideration and lay draft legislation on L-day next year, in the early summer of 2019, with a view to legislating on it in the autumn Budget 2019 and its coming into force from April 2020. While I have spoken to some of the small number of British producers who will be affected and I note their concerns, this is a question of fundamental fairness in the duty system.
Kirsty Blackman
Perhaps I did not express myself very well. My constituents are lobbying for the change to be made; they are not lobbying against the change being made. I was asking when this would come in, because they are hoping for it to come in.
Finance (No. 3) Bill (Fifth sitting)
Kirsty Blackman Excerpts(6 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. After two days in the reassuring embrace of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the Committee has a brief interlude.
Clause 32 will make changes to end, from April 2020, first-year allowances for all products on the energy technology list and the water technology list, including the associated first-year tax credit. The environmental first-year allowances aimed to encourage greater take-up of environmentally friendly technology. Capital expenditure by businesses on plant and machinery normally qualifies for tax relief by way of capital allowances. Environmental first-year allowances allow 100% of the cost of an investment in qualifying plant and machinery to be written off against taxable income in the year of investment, providing a cash-flow benefit. The first-year tax credit provides a tax credit for loss-making businesses that invest in qualifying items.
The first-year allowance was introduced in 2001 for products on the energy technology list, and in 2003 for products on the water technology list. However, the allowances have made the tax system more complex, and there is very limited evidence that they have driven greater uptake of such technologies. A report by the Office of Tax Simplification found significant barriers to accessing the allowances, including the administrative burden of making claims. Government analysis suggests that less than 25% of energy managers would increase investment in energy-saving technology because of the allowances, while fewer than 20% of manufacturers report a positive impact on sales.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The Minister makes an interesting case, but it is what I would have expected as part of the report required by amendment 75. Will the Government accept the amendment and provide us with the information in report form, rather than having the Minister stand up here and tell us?
Robert Jenrick
I will come to the amendment in a moment, but I hope I will be able to reassure the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde that we have already given the matter a great deal of thought and spoken to a number of stakeholders in the sector. Our actions are led by precisely the businesses that benefit from the existing reliefs.
For 99% of businesses, all plant and machinery is already eligible for full relief under the annual investment allowance, so the enhanced capital allowances provide no additional incentive. Smaller businesses such as those to which the hon. Gentleman refers have little if any reason to make use of those reliefs. The Government therefore believe that there are better ways to support energy efficiency.
The changes made by clause 32 will end the first-year allowances and the first-year tax credits from April 2020. In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question about little notice, there is a significant amount of notice, beginning with the Budget this year, and these first-year tax rates not ending until April 2020. That is the point at which the industrial energy transformation fund will be available. Those rates will still be available until then, which will give businesses the time they need to prepare for change. The Government will look to lay secondary legislation in 2019 and update the lists of eligible technology, so that they can still be used and will be updated to include the most efficient technologies in the meantime. There is no sense in which those measures will fall behind with technological change.
To give some extra detail on some of the flaws with the current first-year allowance for energy technology, we found very low levels of awareness, as I have already described. Manufacturers estimate that less than a quarter of their customers are even aware of the scheme, and it provided little additionality. As I have set out, fewer than 25% of energy managers reported that the scheme influenced their investment decisions, and fewer than 20% of manufacturers reported that, if they did use it, it made a positive impact on their sales and businesses.
Many tax advisers reported to us that their clients decided to make claims after they had chosen to invest in efficient technology, so it did not have the impact that we would have hoped. Small companies are much less likely than larger companies to benefit, and 99% of companies would already be able to make such investments under the annual investment allowance. A 2017 survey by the Federation of Small Businesses found that only a quarter of small business owners were even aware of the scheme.
Kirsty Blackman
Is the Minister not making the case for more consultation in advance of any tax changes? Clearly, this tax change did not achieve what the Government thought it would. The consultations and information asked for are even more vital if the Government are making mistakes and not achieving what they had hoped.
Robert Jenrick
It is pretty clear from the evidence I have just laid out that the current tax reliefs do not work. We are making the changes required to ensure that smaller businesses, through the increased annual investment allowance, will have the allowance they need to make these investments. We will now work closely with other businesses, through the design of the industrial energy transformation fund, and a full consultation on that will be launched at the beginning of next year. We encourage the hon. Lady, businesses and other members of the Committee to take part in that consultation, as we design the successor fund to these reliefs.
The Government remain committed to increasing environmental efficiency, and the savings from ending first-year allowances and tax credits will be used to fund the industrial energy transformation fund. That fund will help businesses with high energy use to cut their energy bills and reduce their carbon emissions, by supporting investment in energy efficiency and other innovative decarbonisation technologies that may become available in the years ahead. Those could include, for example, investment in carbon capture and storage, or fuel-switching technologies. However, decisions on the scheme design, including eligibility and the technologies that will be supported, will be subject to the consultation with industry that I have just described. Establishing the scheme will fulfil our manifesto commitment to establish an energy efficiency scheme for industry, and that has been widely welcomed, including by groups such as EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation; UK Steel and the Energy Intensive Users Group. Since the Budget, I have spoken to a number of heavy users of energy, including car manufacturers, who all welcome this measure.
Jonathan Reynolds
I regret to inform the Committee that we are reaching the end of the section of the Bill relating to capital allowances.
The capital allowances regime clearly requires a holistic review by the Government. We all agree that we want to make the UK a competitive and attractive place for businesses. As we contemplate our departure from the EU, that requirement has never been more pressing. Yet, these measures all come at a cost. The annual investment allowance increase will cost £1.24 billion in its first three years. By 2023-24, the buildings and construction expenditure allowance will cost over half a billion pounds. They need an assessment in the round so we can aggregate these reliefs against the corporation tax reductions and see what the package really looks like, what the economic justification is for these changes, and whether that money should be reprioritised elsewhere.
With the UK becoming such an outlier among other developed countries in relation to corporation tax, with an eventual rate of corporation tax well below the average of OECD countries, we need to ensure that our overall package of measures is properly targeted. That is why Labour is moving new clause 5, which would oblige the Government to present an analysis in a year’s time of the full effect of these changes and the corporation tax alterations. We need to understand what this package looks like in the round, whether it is providing value for money, and what the real cost is to the taxpayer in aggregate. Only then can we make a judgment on whether this is the right and appropriate way to spend the money, when the UK has so many other priorities after eight difficult years of austerity.
That is why I urge Members to vote for new clause 5, which would obligate the Government to publish a review in a year’s time. By then, we will be in a position to see how these allowances have been taken up, as well as to make some initial judgments on Britain’s business investment landscape post our exit from the European Union.
Clause 34 will amend the Capital Allowances Act 2001 to clarify that land alterations qualify for capital allowances where plant or machinery is installed that qualifies for the same allowances. It helps to clarify the qualifications in place for businesses that seek to carry out such work. The Opposition have no particular objection to ending the mismatch, but this is another tidying-up measure. Will the Minister provide some insight on whether any further such measures are to come? How was the inconsistency brought to the Government’s attention? Is there any estimate of the cost associated with this measure? There should be greater transparency and understanding of exactly where such a measure has come from. If there has been pressure from a particular sector, that needs to be clear. Opposition amendment 79 calls for the Government to present to the House a report on any consultation undertaken on these provisions. I call on Members to vote for this amendment to provide proper transparency on process to the House, so that the cost and benefit can be properly scrutinised and we can assess the motivations for bringing about this change.
Kirsty Blackman
It is a pleasure to speak in this Committee and to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Dorries. I want to focus my comments on new clause 2, but if the Labour party presses amendment 79 or new clause 5 to a vote, we will support it. What we are trying to do in new clause 2 is not dissimilar from what Labour is trying to do in new clause 5—we are just going about it in slightly different ways. Putting the two new clauses together would make a lot of sense, to encompass what we are both trying to achieve.
New clause 2 looks at clauses 29 to 34 and schedule 12 to the Bill and provides for a review of the changes to capital allowances. It asks for a number of reviews and for us to measure against a number of outcomes that we hope the Government will seek through any changes they make to capital allowances or through having a capital allowances system in the first place.
The first review is of business investment. What changes do the Government expect for business investment as a result of all the changes made to capital allowances? Any tax system tries to do three things: disincentivise undesirable behaviour, incentivise desirable behaviour and get money for the Exchequer. It is important to consider whether the legislation does any of those things in the way we would hope. Business investment is key; surely, the point of capital allowances is to incentivise good business investment. Therefore, it is reasonable that the Government come back and explain to us the potential changes they expect to business investment resulting from their legislative changes.
The second review is of employment. That is important; the Government are never off their high horse about the level of employment they say we have. If they hope the changes will make a difference to employment levels, they should tell us how much change they expect so that we can measure their performance against whether that has been achieved. We just heard that the previous tax allowances put in place for first-year allowances did not have the desired effect, and the Government have to change them. Therefore, it would be useful to know what the Government expect to happen to the number of employed people as a result of their changes. We can measure the Government against that and say whether the measure has failed or has achieved what they intended to achieve.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I would like to drill down a little on the point about the customs union. As I read the withdrawal agreement and the future framework, the Government have negotiated single market access that is tariff-free and quota-free and that carries no rules of origin checks. Effectively, the benefits of the customs union are in that package. What more does the hon. Lady want?
Kirsty Blackman
The other day, I was talking about the benefits of being in the customs union to a trade expert, who explained to me in quite simple—but incredibly useful—terms the difference between being in a customs union and not being in one. Within a customs union, the starting point is the assumption that the appropriate tariff has already been paid on every good, whereas outside the customs union the assumption is that that has to be proved. Even without rules of origin checks, we would be starting from a different point of view. However, I am not clear that the withdrawal agreement has agreed that there will not be rules of origin checks. I do not understand how the UK Government can say in their financial analysis paper that they will have a free trade agreement with China but no rules of origin checks for goods travelling between the UK and the EU.
Vicky Ford
The Government negotiating team have offered briefings on this deal to every Member of the House from every party. Establishing the answer to those rules of origin—
Kirsty Blackman
I was just looking to wind up—[Laughter.] That is not entirely what I meant.
We are seeking more information from the Government about what they intend to achieve. It is incredibly important to do this in the context of Brexit, and it is incredibly important that companies know what the Government are trying to achieve, so that they are aware of what they are being incentivised or disincentivised to do and what the Government’s changes to capital allowances are trying to encourage them to do. If more information could be provided to us and the general public, that would be hugely appreciated. I hope that we can vote on this new clause when we come to the votes at the end.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I thank the hon. Members for Stalybridge and Hyde and for Aberdeen North for their contributions, and I will endeavour to pick up the various points that have been made.
Since 1994, capital allowances have not been available for most buildings and structures, including aqueducts, bridges, canals, roads and tunnels. It has been long understood by HMRC—and by taxpayers—that nobody can claim plant and machinery allowances where the expenditure relates to an excluded structure or building. Specifically, nobody can claim capital allowances for expenditure on altering land for the purpose of installing an asset that is excluded from allowances. Expenditure on buildings and structures is excluded in this way by sections 21 and 22 of the Capital Allowances Act 2001.
To answer one of the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, doubt has been cast on that principle by a recent tribunal decision, which HMRC is appealing against. The purpose of the clause is to ensure that the law remains clear and that plant and machinery allowances can be claimed only in relation to alterations of land to install qualifying assets. The clause clarifies the legislation to provide certainty going forward and to protect the Exchequer from potential spurious and windfall claims for historical expenditure.
The clause should be read alongside the introduction of a new structures and buildings allowance, which in time will become a very substantial relief that fills a significant gap in our capital allowances system. Taxpayers who alter land for the purpose of installing a structure or building should claim this new allowance—we covered it when debating clause 29—and should not claim the plant and machinery allowance.
As I have said, the clause clarifies that expenditure on land alterations cannot qualify for capital allowances unless it relates to the installation of qualifying plant and machinery. No expenditure on structures or buildings, as defined in sections 21 and 22 of the Capital Allowances Act 2001, will be counted as plant. This will apply to all capital allowance claims made from 29 October 2018 onwards, but not to claims already in the system—to do otherwise would be unfair. However, as this does nothing more than restore the commonly held interpretation of the law, we do not consider it to disadvantage any company that has already incurred expenditure. If we did not make this amendment, there is a strong probability that some businesses might make spurious or windfall claims, as there is no time limit for making a capital allowances claim.
Amendment 79 seeks a legislative commitment by the Government to report on any consultations that are undertaken on this measure. However, the measure addresses a potential source of ambiguity in the capital allowances legislation and protects revenue that we need for our vital public services. That needs to be done quickly to maintain a level playing field and to provide certainty for businesses incurring expenditure in this area. The Government’s view is that this measure is not best supported by consultation, which would delay this change. In any case, it restores the interpretation of the law that HMRC and taxpayers commonly understood before the recent tribunal case.
New clause 2 aims to commit the Government to report on the impact of the capital allowances changes in the Bill, including under a number of different EU withdrawal scenarios, as well as on the impact on different parts of the United Kingdom. The Office for Budget Responsibility has provided its independent view of the impact of these policies, in particular on business investment, in its “Economic and fiscal outlook” report, in the box titled “The economic effects of policy measures”. When available, HMRC will publish updated statistics on capital allowances claimed, split by asset type and by industry. Data on capital allowances claimed are based on where companies are registered rather than where the activity itself takes place. Requiring businesses to provide the more detailed information that this report would require about the precise location of their expenditure would represent a significant new administrative burden.
On the impact of the policies in different EU exit scenarios, the capital allowances package in the Bill is intended to boost business investment in all scenarios. The Government have already laid before Parliament a written ministerial statement under the title “Exiting the European Union: publications”, representing cross-Whitehall economic analysis on the long-term impacts of an EU exit on the UK economy, its sectors, nations and regions and the public finances. The document is available on gov.uk and from the Printed Paper Office. Committee members will be aware that I also answered an urgent question at length on this very matter.
New clause 5 is intended to commit the Government to assess the aggregate effects of the changes to corporation tax and capital allowances made under the Bill. However, that information is already largely set out in the public domain. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility certifies the Exchequer impact of all the measures in the Bill, set out in table 2.1 and table 2.2 of Budget 2018. When they are announced, the OBR will also provide its independent view of the impact of these policies on business investment in its “Economic and fiscal outlook” report, in the box titled “The economic effects of policy measures”.
Finally, every year HMRC will publish updated statistics breaking down corporation tax paid and capital allowances claimed. For those reasons, I urge the Committee to reject the amendment and new clauses, and I
commend the clause to the Committee.
Robert Jenrick
Clause 36 and schedule 14 introduce a transferable tax history—TTH, as it has become known—mechanism, and clause 37 amends the petroleum revenue tax rules for retained decommissioning costs. Both measures will apply to oil and gas companies operating on the UK continental shelf, and to transactions that receive approval from the Oil and Gas Authority or relevant regulator on or after 1 November 2018.
These measures are designed to encourage investment in late-life oil and gas assets that are approaching the point of decommissioning, prolonging the life of the basin and sustaining jobs across the UK, but in particular in north-east Scotland. Decommissioning costs are generally incurred at the end of a field’s productive life, when taxable profits are not being generated. To provide tax relief for those costs, oil and gas companies within the UK’s ring fence tax regime can carry them back against taxable profits generated since 2002. That prevents decommissioning from being performed early for tax purposes, thereby helping to achieve the Government’s goal of maximising economic recovery of oil and gas.
When a new entrant without a history of taxable profits acquires an old field, there is a risk that the decommissioning costs of the field will exceed the taxable profits generated by the new owner, preventing effective tax relief via the traditional carry-back mechanism and leaving the buyer in a worse position than the seller would have been in. That can make old fields unattractive to new entrants and deter much-needed investment in this important industry. That is a growing problem in an ageing basin, but one that we now believe can be resolved by our innovative TTH measure.
The change to the PRT rules addresses the increasingly common scenario of a seller retaining some or all of a decommissioning liability after selling a field. The PRT system currently requires the seller to remain on the relevant production licence to receive tax relief for any retained costs. However, doing so often requires complex tax structuring that serves no particular purpose other than to protect the seller’s tax position.
The changes made by these measures will create the right environment for much-needed new investment in our older fields. They will introduce a TTH mechanism that provides new investors with the certainty that they require about the tax relief they will receive for decommissioning costs. That will allow new deals to proceed, injecting new energy into a basin that still has 10 billion to 20 billion barrels of oil remaining. Initial feedback from the industry has been extremely positive—this change is already well received internationally and is helping new deals to continue.
TTH will allow companies selling oil and gas fields to transfer some of their tax payment history to the buyers of those fields. The buyers will then be able to set the costs of decommissioning the field against the TTH to generate a repayment. It should be noted that that should not be an extra cost to the Exchequer, as the repayment only replaces what would otherwise have been made by the seller. It will level the playing field between sellers and buyers of oil and gas fields, encouraging investment by providing new entrants with certainty on the tax relief available for their decommissioning costs. The new investment into the basin as a result of TTH is expected to increase tax receipts from the sector by £75 million over the scorecard period.
The clause also makes changes to enable petroleum revenue tax relief when a seller retains a decommissioning liability. A tax deduction will now become available to the buyer where the seller subsequently incurs decommissioning expenditure or where the seller contributes to the buyer’s decommissioning costs. That will simplify the way that older oilfields can be sold to new investors and help to prolong their productive lives. Before turning to the amendments, I thank all hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, who participated in the discussions that led to this important measure, which we believe will help the community around Aberdeen in particular, but also those across the country.
Amendments 81 and 89 seek to amend the definition of a decommissioning security agreement within the TTH legislation in schedule 14. Decommissioning security agreements are specific commercial agreements that provide assurance to partners in a field for which funds will be available for decommissioning. The proposed changes to the definition would make the decommissioning security agreement required for a TTH election incompatible with the industry standard decommissioning security agreement, which, in our opinion, would make TTH elections impracticable and unworkable for the vast majority of our oil and gas fields, which rely on the well-established and respected industry standard agreement. TTH has been carefully designed to leverage estimates of decommissioning costs, which are already used in decommissioning security agreements, taking note of the history of the agreements. The agreements are confidential and, as one might imagine, highly commercially sensitive and are typically shared only between the joint venture partners and HMRC, in accordance with taxpayer confidentiality.
Kirsty Blackman
Will the Minister tell us a little bit about the process that the Government went through in creating the Bill, and the work done between the Government and industry to ensure that the legislation works?
Robert Jenrick
Yes, I will turn to that. As the hon. Lady knows—she participated in and attended at least one meeting I held in Aberdeen with the Oil and Gas Authority and stakeholders—we have carried out a great deal of careful consideration and consultation with the industry, because TTH will succeed only if it works for both the buyers and the sellers. Our sole objective is not to raise revenue for the Exchequer but to extend the life of the basin and to create jobs and investment for an important part of the United Kingdom.
The new investment encouraged by TTH will prolong the life of the basin, which has 10 billion to 20 billion more barrels left, helping to protect the hundreds of thousands of jobs I have already mentioned. We believe that the amendments would introduce counterproductive additional requirements and inhibit the use of TTH. I urge the Committee to reject them. They may be well intentioned, but they would be contrary to the objective of the measure.
Amendment 84 would limit the maximum amount of tax history that a seller can transfer under a TTH election. The TTH legislation currently caps the maximum amount of tax history that can be transferred under a TTH election to double the decommissioning cost estimate agreed for a decommissioning security agreement. Decommissioning costs are inherently uncertain and can increase significantly for reasons outside the control of the operator and for reasons that were unknown at the time of the sale. For that reason, they are typically subject to a very large range of accuracy. For fields still years away from decommissioning, the range often includes a 100% cost increase. TTH has been designed to be compatible with this regularly accepted range of estimates and to ensure that the buyer cannot end up in a worse position than the seller.
Kirsty Blackman
I agree with the Minister’s point about fluctuations. Does he agree that the cost of hiring boats has fluctuated massively over the past five years? If we had looked at this in 2010, we could not have predicted the fluctuations in just that small but nevertheless incredibly expensive area for oil and gas companies.
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Lady speaks from her deep knowledge of this area. It is absolutely right that some costs have fallen, particularly since the fall in the oil price, which has driven significant efficiencies in the sector, but other costs are rising. New technologies are coming on board. Taking on a project that entails such uncertainty while being tied to a single estimate of decommissioning costs, without a wide range as we have allowed in the measure, would be a major disincentive for a buyer coming in to one of these projects.
Let me address the concern inherent in the amendments about disincentivising cost-reduction, or that the measure, in providing such a wide field, would make it unlikely for buyers to try to reduce the cost and therefore would gain higher tax relief as a result. I think the buyer will retain a strong incentive to minimise total costs, as they will be liable for meeting the remainder of the decommissioning costs. The amendment is therefore unnecessarily restrictive and would harm TTH.
Amendments 85, 86 and 87 and schedule 14 would change the TTH activation mechanism to restrict decommissioning tax relief on a field, so that it could not exceed the level of new capital investment made by a purchaser. Decommissioning costs generally occur at the end of a field’s life, when its reserves are exhausted and new capital investment will not result in further economic recovery of oil or gas reserves. For many purchasers it would therefore not be practical to make significant capital investment during the decommissioning process.
Furthermore, requiring the purchaser to match what can be very high decommissioning costs with an equal level of new capital investment could easily bankrupt many of the smaller operators that we want to take part in the industry. The best way to ensure that we get new investment into the industry, to protect jobs and create new ones, and to maximise economic recovery of our natural resources, is to have an effective TTH mechanism. That is exactly what we believe we have achieved, as a result of the deep consultation that we have conducted with industry, which I will explain in a moment. The amendments would make TTH completely unattractive and ineffective. I therefore urge the Committee to reject them.
In answer to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, I will briefly summarise the steps that we have taken to consult with the industry since TTH was announced at Budget 2017. Even prior to Budget 2017, the topic had been discussed with stakeholders for some time. We have built on numerous discussions held between July and December 2016, by issuing at the time of the Budget a discussion paper on tax issues affecting late-life oil and gas assets. We received 28 detailed responses and then held an expert panel, working with the industry to design the measure. I myself held two meetings in Aberdeen this year with the Oil and Gas Authority and stakeholders. Draft legislation was published over the summer on L-day, for technical consultation with the industry. We received further feedback as a result and much of that has been incorporated into the final legislation. Although there are always ways to take the measure further, we believe we have reached a point where the industry is satisfied and welcomes the steps we have taken.
Clive Lewis
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I look forward to speaking on behalf of the Opposition, and I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am particularly pleased to speak to our amendments to the clauses and schedule that relate to transferable tax history, and I hope that the Minister will answer some questions on the proposed measures.
As the Minister outlined, the clause creates a mechanism for companies that are buying equity in UK oil and gas fields to acquire the tax histories of the selling companies and use them to reduce the future decommissioning costs of those fields. The Government’s intent, as we understand it, is to extend production from late-life oil and gas fields in the UK by encouraging their purchase from companies that are no longer willing to extract from them by companies that are. The Government seek to achieve that by overcoming what they believe is a barrier to sales—namely the concern that new companies will not make enough profit from the field to pay for future decommissioning costs. Transferable tax history will allow the buying company to draw on the taxes paid by the previous owners to claim the maximum tax relief possible for decommissioning.
The Opposition believe there are a number of fundamental flaws to the proposals. Transferable tax history is fiscally irresponsible. It expands the very tax breaks that put the Exchequer on the hook for exorbitant future decommissioning liabilities, which the Government have set aside no money to pay for. It creates perverse incentives, providing a windfall for companies exiting the North sea, and it fails to ensure a long-term commitment from incoming buyers on workers’ rights, capital investment and emissions reductions for the benefit of the UK. It also totally disregards the UK’s role in avoiding catastrophic climate change, and does nothing to address the urgent need for a just transition to a low-carbon economy.
With that in mind, amendments 81 to 89 seek to ensure that no transfers are approved that increase taxpayer liability for decommissioning tax-related rebates. They would also limit TTH transfers to current estimates for decommissioning costs, thus ensuring that transferable tax history does not spiral and is no higher than estimated for current reliefs. The Bill currently allows companies to transfer tax history that is worth double the value of anticipated decommissioning costs. The UK taxpayer is already committed to footing the bill for a staggering £24 billion of the estimated £64 billion decommissioning costs in the coming decades, despite the massive profits made by oil and gas companies from the North sea. Do the Government expect the £24 billion decommissioning bill to double to £48 billion over the life cycle of TTH? The UK cannot keep spending revenues that it knows it will have to pay back and that are derived from oil we cannot afford to burn, yet TTH doubles down on those policy failures. If that is not addressed now by ring-fencing a portion of oil revenue to prepare for those costs, our fiscal and environmental future will become hostage to oil revenues.
The most staggering thing about this measure, which perhaps the Minister will confirm, is that the Government have set aside no decommissioning fund to deal with the consequences of these promises. As it stands, our share of decommissioning costs is completely unfunded, and a consequence of short-term priorities and incentivising investment decisions that have been taken regardless of long-term fiscal planning and environmental exigencies. Will the Minister explain the long-term fiscal strategy for dealing with those costs when they inevitably land on the taxpayer in the not-too-distant future?
The Government’s arguments appear to rest on the assumption that additional decommissioning tax rebates will be compensated for by higher revenues from oil and gas fields, generated by increased investment and production by buyers. There is, however, an alarming lack of evidence to support that assumption, and detailed modelling of the long-term impact on decommissioning costs is conspicuously absent. Indeed, it could be argued that TTH reduces the incentives for the buying companies to increase production and generate more revenues, so have the Government considered the potential implications of that? It is perhaps unsurprising that the Government have provided no data on how much additional decommissioning rebate the Treasury might give away due to TTH, and neither have they undertaken any analysis of what would happen in a future scenario in which the oil price changes. Will the Minister commit to conducting such analysis and present the results to the House?
In our view, the measure reduces the incentive for companies to move towards efficiencies and decommissioning costs, and paves the way for decommissioning-related tax repayments that are far bigger than those companies are acknowledging. The clause is representative of the Finance Bill as a whole: it fails to deliver for the people of this country who are so desperately in need of investment in our public services, and instead it favours tax cuts for the wealthiest corporations, with the taxpayer left vulnerable to huge potential payouts. Our amendment would remove that provision and ensure that runaway decommissioning costs will not become a taxpayer risk.
Moving on, amendments 81, 85 and 86 seek to incentivise capital investment by new purchasers in job creation and emissions reductions—two crucial things that the Bill does not address. Exacerbating the problem is the fact that no clear plan has been set out by Government in the Bill to ensure a commitment to continued investment and employment from incoming buyers. Will the Minister tell us what plans he will put in place to ensure job security? Will he consider making TTH transfers conditional on maintaining employment levels? Similarly, will the Government consider limiting TTH claims to incoming companies’ investment in infrastructure, maintenance, retraining and methane reduction?
The irony of TTH becomes clear when looking at that last point. The stated aim of TTH is to prolong the life of North sea assets, yet it has the potential to do the opposite, reducing incentives for incoming companies fully to develop late-life fields. Currently, a new entrant to the North sea would have to ensure several years of production to generate sufficient taxable profits fully to carry back decommissioning losses. TTH removes that incentive. Rather than ensuring sufficient production, should the oil price dip, a company can simply claim against transfer tax history.
Far from ensuring stable future investment, the irony is that TTH has the potential to subsidise the cost of an early exit should the oil market turn against the companies, thereby making UK jobs in that industry more, not less, vulnerable to market conditions. Amendments 81, 85 and 86 limit the TTH history that may be claimed to an amount equal to such investment, ensuring that the measure will not result in increased future liabilities for the Exchequer. They will also act as a starting point for addressing issues of job security and the environment, which I will come on to in more detail.
Amendment 89 builds on ideas that the Committee has already discussed, and extends them to a decommissioning security agreement. It would require such an agreement to include an assessment of the impact on the Exchequer of the amount spent on staff in order for the agreement to qualify under the schedule. The amendment seeks to encourage transparency and accountability between the seller and the buying company, ensuring that the cost of staff, and expectations for staff retention levels, are made clear, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
There are a number of additional questions about the clause. The first expands on the issue of workers’ rights. Although the Government may argue that transferable tax history is a way of protecting jobs by extending the life of those assets, research by Oil Change International, Platform and Unite, which represent those workers, found that major North sea tax cuts over the last 40 years have not led to higher employment, and neither did tax rises reduce employment. Will the Minister say what the net flow of revenue has been between the Treasury and North sea oil and gas companies over the last three years? It seems clear that those companies have used the raft of recent tax cuts not to create new jobs—160,000 have gone in the last three years—but to enrich their shareholders.
How can the Government ensure that TTH will work in the interests of workers employed on those assets? No clauses in the Bill provide safeguards for workers’ jobs and workplace rights—it seems that the benefits of TTH will go to the private owners of oil and gas companies, and that the clause has been drafted in their interests alone. We argue that it is the Government’s responsibility to promote the stability of jobs in the region, and to ensure they are protected once smaller businesses take over the running of those sites. Will the Minister commit to conduct an analysis of the stability and security of those jobs, including the impact of the provisions, and to share that with the House?
Secondly, there is a huge concern about the environmental consequences of TTH and the encouragement of further exploitation of oil and gas in the North sea. The Government have yet properly to explain how the proposed policy fits with the UK’s commitment to the Paris climate agreement. Despite the continued claim that the UK is a global leader in taking action to meet those targets, the Government’s policies continue to fall far short of their green rhetoric. Climate science states clearly that to avoid global warming of more than 1.5°, at least 80% of known oil and gas reserves must stay in the ground. Every nation bears some degree of responsibility for leaving a portion of its fossil fuel reserves untouched.
Rather than assessing purely commercial viability, we should also assess how much remaining oil and gas in the UK can be exploited within the confines of the Paris climate agreement. It would therefore be helpful to know if and how the Government intend to assess the compatibility of TTH with that agreement. Do the Government have a view on how much of the UK’s remaining 7.5 million barrels of discovered undeveloped oil and gas resources can be equitably developed if we are to play our part in meeting the Paris goals?
Ultimately, this issue ties into the Government’s wider policy of maximum economic recovery, by which they have committed to extracting as much oil and gas as is commercially viable. Recent reforms, such as tax reduction and the decommissioning relief deed, as well as the proposal before us, are designed to make ageing marginal fields attractive to investment, even if that means reducing the per-barrel tax take or subsidising decommissioning costs to improve corporate returns. That approach is wholly inappropriate in a climate-constrained world, and it is entirely inconsistent with the Paris agreement, which requires not only a moratorium on new exploration, but the winding down of a substantial portion of current projects. In short, we need sustainable economic recovery, with Paris-compatible maximum-production targets, and a strategy to determine which combination of oil fields can most safely, efficiently and equitably exhaust the UK’s quota.
Kirsty Blackman
To clarify, is the Labour party position now no longer to maximise economic recovery?
Clive Lewis
I sat on the Bill Committee for the setting up of the OGA three years ago, and we put forward amendments for sustainable economic recovery. I recall that the Scottish National party and the Conservative party favoured maximum economic recovery. That was a difference of opinion between the two sides back then.
Thirdly and finally, there are huge risks for the taxpayer. Those risks are acknowledged by the Office for Budget Responsibility, which concluded:
“The underlying tax base is volatile and the behavioural response to these relatively complex tax changes is uncertain. We have assigned this measure a ‘high’ uncertainty rating.”
Ultimately, the policy is based on a gamble on the future oil price. Independent expert research commissioned by Global Witness states that there could be a loss of over £3 billion in tax revenue for the Exchequer over 10 years, as compared with the tax take if TTH is not introduced.
Transferable tax history has an impact on the results of investment decisions only when oil prices are relatively low. When the prices are above $50 a barrel, the impact of and need for transferable tax history is less, or even nil, since the higher prices tend to mean higher taxable income to the acquirer, who would generate enough new taxable income on their own to cover decommissioning costs.
Transferable tax history effectively provides acquirers with a hedge against lower oil prices. It jeopardizes future tax returns to incentivise investment in fields that are likely to be less efficient and with lower yields, without any consideration of climate limits or guarantees on jobs. Why is the Exchequer willing to push that cost on to the taxpayer, rather than on to the multinational companies that make vast profits from production every year and are seemingly unwilling to share them with their own workers?
Kirsty Blackman
It is not often that I will be found in Committee agreeing with clauses in any Government Bill—least of all in a Finance Bill. However, on clauses 36 and 37, I agree with the provisions on transferable tax history and thank the Government for including them.
I first raised the issue of transferable tax history on the record in March 2016 in Westminster Hall. The debate was led by the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the offshore oil and gas industry. It is an active all-party group and does a huge amount of lobbying of the Government. I am sure the Chancellor is sick of hearing from us about things to make the industry more effective and maximise economic recovery, as we have been discussing. We have regularly proposed transferable tax history since we first discovered that the industry was concerned.
I will give a little background on the importance of transferable tax history and the reasons why we have called for it. There are smaller oil and gas fields around the central ones. The decommissioning of the central oil and gas field results in secondary oil and gas fields, and the smaller pools around the site, no longer being accessible without the building of significant new infrastructure. It is therefore important that, whenever the Oil and Gas Authority takes decisions about which assets can and should be decommissioned at a given time, it does so in the full knowledge of the knock-on impact. We need to ensure that we continue to have access, for example, to the small pools that are not economically viable now but are likely to be once the technology has improved. Decisions about decommissioning must be taken with full knowledge of the knock-on impacts.
The other thing that must be taken into account with decommissioning is the effect that removing assets might have on future carbon capture and storage plans. It is incredibly important that some pipelines are kept in place for the carbon capture and storage systems that are currently in train to be viable. That is another thing the Oil and Gas Authority must consider when it decides whether a field is ready for decommissioning.
One recent issue is that big operators that own a huge number of oil and gas fields, some of which are reaching the end of their economic life, must put in enhanced oil recovery mechanisms to get the rest of the oil out, which means working at higher pressures and temperatures. Big companies that have a huge number of operations in the North sea and around the world will not want to put in the necessary effort to maximise the recovery from the asset. It will think, “Actually, we are not fussed about this asset. Potentially we should just decommission it.”
Clive Lewis
When the deliberations were taking place with the Government, was any consideration given to climate change, the Paris agreement and the sustainable level of oil extraction? Was the fact that we will need to leave a substantial amount of oil in the ground— 80% by some estimates—to ensure we play our part in tackling climate change and remaining within the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change targets taken into account?
Kirsty Blackman
The SNP position and the Government position is to maximise economic recovery. Oil extraction does not have a particular impact on carbon levels. It is not about oil extraction; it is about what is done with it afterwards. Carbon capture and storage, for example, has a major impact on reducing the emissions that are produced when oil and gas are used. We have been pushing very hard on carbon capture and storage. If the extracted oil is made into tarmac or plastic products, it would not cause the emissions that would be caused if it is put into a car or turned into heating oil.
The Government have taken steps on electric vehicles and the Scottish Government are doing incredible things to promote them. They are increasing insulation in houses, because domestic heating is a significant contributor to climate change. A lot is being done in this space, and it has been recognised that Scotland has the most ambitious climate change targets in the world.
All of our oil and gas fields will be decommissioned at some point. That is how this works. It was always going to be a time-limited industry, because eventually the oil and gas that can be recovered economically will run out. Once an oil and gas field is decommissioned, there will be no jobs associated with it anymore, and there will be none of the anciliary services, so it reduces the amount of employment. A new player may come into the market and want to take on a field that is not a major asset for a big oil and gas company—it would rather decommission the field because it has had enough of it and cannot be bothered with it anymore. Transferring the asset on to the new company means that, however much technology it uses, jobs will be associated with the asset—there will be no jobs if it is decommissioned. We will still get the decommissioning spend and the jobs associated with decommissioning—we will just get it later. The continuing jobs on the asset will be a good thing.
Vision 2035 is the Oil and Gas Authority’s vision, which has been picked up by the industry. It is still not talked about enough, particularly by parliamentarians. We are doing our best to raise its profile, but more hon. Members could do more. Vision 2035 is about what we want the oil and gas industry to look like in 2035. Hon. Members will understand that it is hugely important for the north-east of Scotland because of the significant percentage of jobs supported by the oil and gas industry, but it is important throughout the UK. A huge number of companies throughout England provide widgets—I tend to call goods widgets—that are used in oil and gas. If we do not have a successful North sea operation, those widgets will not be bought or used in the north.
Vision 2035 is about anchoring the supply chain. It is about a system where, once there is no viable oil and gas left in the North sea, we can continue to have oil and gas jobs anchored in the north-east of Scotland and throughout the UK. The only way we can do that is if we support the industry now and support the jobs that there are now. The Oil and Gas Authority states that the North sea and the UK continental shelf are seen as a gold standard. If a technology is trialled and works in the North sea, other countries will be happy to roll out that technology if it suits their sea conditions, because they know it has been tested in one of the most rigorous regimes and by some of the best people—they will know that the technology works.
For us to continue to have a viable oil and gas industry and a viable anchored supply chain, we need to ensure that we continue to be at the forefront of any technological changes. What we are doing on enhanced oil recovery is genuinely world leading. There are few fields in the world that are at the supermature stage of the North sea, so we are doing some of the most amazing things with technology. We can see by the increase in productivity in the North sea that technological advances have been made. If the companies making the widgets that improve production continue to be anchored here in the UK, we will be able to export those technologies and the services that sit alongside them around the world even when there is no recoverable oil and gas in the North sea.
Many of the companies that I have spoken to in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire are providing widgets and, yes, they are exporting them, but they are also exporting the people power and the services that go with them through ongoing maintenance contracts, which are a big revenue stream for the region. It is important that we do not talk only about the amount of money oil and gas generates for the Exchequer through petroleum revenue tax and the money that comes in because oil and gas comes out of the ground. We should also talk about the wider impact on the economy, which can be felt particularly in the north-east of Scotland.
When the oil price went down, we had a massive issue with house prices and redundancies in the north-east of Scotland. Very real change took place not just in those jobs directly involved with operating assets in the North sea, but in those jobs working in supermarkets in Aberdeen or in hotels. We saw the knock-on impact on the economy. It is important for the entire economy that we pursue Vision 2035.
As I have said previously, and I think the Minister covered this, this has been a good example of the UK Government and industry working together. I particularly thank Mike Tholen and Romina Mele-Cornish from Oil & Gas UK, who worked incredibly hard on this. Romina had a particularly difficult time trying to explain transferable tax history to a room full of MPs and managed to get there eventually, but that was not an easy task because it is quite complicated. If people do not understand particularly how decommissioning liabilities work, we have to explain that first before explaining why TTH makes a big difference, which I think it really does.
Regarding the amendments tabled by the Labour party, there is a suggestion that companies will try to inflate the cost of decommissioning or will be disincentivised from reducing the cost of decommissioning as a result of TTH. I do not believe for a second that that is the case; the point the Minister made in relation to the increase and potential fluctuation in decommissioning costs is well made, but the other thing is that companies do not want to have to spend that money. They want decommissioning not to cost a huge amount of money. I am clear that when decommissioning is done, it must be done right, and the Oil and Gas Authority must be on top of that. I am not in favour of companies being able to drive down costs to the very furthest reaches. I want them to drive down costs, but I want the decommissioning to be done properly and at the right time.
Clive Lewis
Given the fact that this could see a doubling in the current estimate of reliefs to about £48 billion—I know there is uncertainty about what that could be, but the legislation here is for that potential for TTH to double the current estimate of £24 billion to £48 billion—can I be cheeky and ask the SNP this? If they did achieve independence, would they carry on with this policy as a sovereign Government and bear the costs associated with it?
Kirsty Blackman
In the event of independence, as was laid out in our White Paper, “Scotland’s Future”, the Scottish and UK Governments will have a negotiation about what will happen to decommissioning tax reliefs. We will do what we can to maximise economic harmony in the North sea and create jobs for the long term. It is incredibly important that those jobs are kept in the UK. The jobs could simply relocate if the Government do not take action. They could do more to support the supply chain, which has been squeezed by the cuts that the bigger operators have had to make because of the reduction in the oil price. The Government could do more to ensure that the supply chain companies are provided with the support that they need. The Oil & Gas Technology Centre is doing a very good job in that regard.
Access to finance is incredibly important so that companies can begin to support and monetise the technology that they have created. They have incredible reserves of intellectual property, some of which have not had the chance to be developed. I would rather not see the IP sold on to somebody else. I would rather the Government supported such development.
All the oilfields will need to be decommissioned eventually, but we want the jobs to be kept for the longer term. We are making a case for the maximum economic recovery to be made from the fields. It is important to note that once a field is decommissioned, there are no longer any jobs associated with that field. If we can prolong the life of that asset, we prolong a situation whereby jobs and therefore money for the Exchequer are secured. That is incredibly important for the north-east of Scotland. I will not support the Labour party’s amendments; I will choose to abstain. However, I will support the Government’s clause in relation to TTH. I thank them for taking action, although I would rather they had taken it sooner.
Sir Robert Syms
In my lifetime, the greatest British success story has been the development of North sea oil. As the Minister set out very clearly, billions of pounds of taxation have been generated. Under successive Governments we have had a tax regime that has been balanced against the risk of the investment that companies have had to take. It is therefore perfectly sensible at this stage of the maturity of the oilfields to use tax policy to ensure that the oilfields continue longer and continue to create jobs and to support, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said, the worldwide oil services sector based in Aberdeen.
I thank the Minister for what he is doing, which is perfectly sensible. It will generate more tax revenue. I hope we will oppose the amendments because they would make an intended simplification of the tax system more complicated. At the end of the day, we want people to continue to pump oil in the North sea and keep the jobs rolling. The Government’s policy supports that.
Robert Jenrick
I will briefly answer some of those points. There has been a misunderstanding about the cost of the policy to the Exchequer. We believe, as is set out quite clearly, that over the scorecard period the measure will raise £65 million of revenue for the Exchequer. Because of the nature of the oil and gas industry and oil price fluctuations, that is a difficult assessment to make. However, we see no evidence for the more outlandish estimates in the press of a £3 billion cost to the Exchequer. Neither did the independent OBR, which checked our figures in relation to the measure and agreed that £65 million was an appropriate estimate over the forecast period. We believe that the measure is fiscally responsible because no additional tax relief will be due until the field is decommissioned. That will enable more fields to be developed, and decommissioning costs will be as they always were.
We see no evidence that the measure will disincentivise efficiency savings and productivity increases. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said, there is a great incentive on all parties to reduce the cost of decommissioning. The industry has signed up with Government to a target of reducing the costs of decommissioning by 35%. We would like them to go even further in the years ahead, and there is a lot of work going on to achieve that. We believe that the United Kingdom, particularly the area around Aberdeen, could be a world centre for decommissioning, and we are investing in facilities and training in that regard. We would like to work on that with the industry, because we see it as creating knowledge, new technology and jobs, which would then be exported to other fields around the world.
Kirsty Blackman
I am really pleased to hear the Government make that commitment in relation to the world centre for decommissioning. We are talking about one of the first oil and gas fields to decommission on a mass scale. It is important that the lessons that we learn from that are used to improve and export the technology.
Robert Jenrick
I think I have answered those points. There was a misunderstanding about decommissioning security agreements, which I hope I have answered. Decommissioning security agreements are confidential and commercially sensitive documents. Amendment 89 would not achieve the aim that the hon. Member for Norwich South set out, because such agreements will not be in the public domain. The documents will be received by HMRC, and decommissioning costs are regulated by the Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning.
Finance (No. 3) Bill (Fourth sitting)
Kirsty Blackman Excerpts(6 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 46, in schedule 6, page 220, line 2, leave out paragraph 11.
This amendment removes the proposed extension of the review period to 15 months.
Amendment 37, in schedule 6, page 220, line 26, at end insert—
“13 The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expected change to payments of diverted profits tax and any associated changes to overall payments made to the Commissioners arising from the provisions of this Schedule, and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within 6 months of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effect on public finances of the diverted profits tax provisions in this Bill.
Amendment 40, in schedule 6, page 220, line 26, at end insert—
“13 The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expected revenue effects of the changes made to diverted profits tax in this Schedule and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effect on public finances on the provisions in Schedule 6.
Amendment 41, in schedule 6, page 220, line 26, at end insert—
“13 The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review diverted profits tax against its policy objectives and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review DPT against its policy objectives.
Amendment 42, in schedule 6, page 220, line 26, at end insert—
“13 The Chancellor of the Exchequer must commission a review comparing diverted profits tax against a Digital Services Tax and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review DPT against the Government’s proposed Digital Services tax.
Amendment 43, in schedule 6, page 220, line 26, at end insert—
“13 (1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must commission a review on the matter specified in subsection (2).
(2) That matter is the effects on the public finances of the the provisions in this Schedule coming into effect in the tax year 2019-20 compared to previous or subsequent tax years.
(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay a report of the review under subsection (1) before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the impact of introducing this measure in 2019-20.
Amendment 45, in schedule 6, page 220, line 26, at end insert—
“13 After section 105 insert—
105A Public register of diverted profits tax payments
(1) The Commissioners must provide information to the Treasury listing those companies that have made payments pursuant to a charge of diverted profits tax, and the amounts of those payments.
(2) The Treasury shall publish a register of companies paying diverted profits tax based on the information provided by the Commissioners under subsection (1), and shall make that register available to the general public.”
This amendment requires the publication of a public register of those companies that pay diverted profits tax.
That schedule 6 be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.
Kirsty Blackman
And a very enjoyable lunch break it was—not that the Committee is not enjoyable, too. [Laughter.] I dug myself out of that one. I want to speak both to Labour’s amendments and to our own, but I will not speak for long.
I find Labour’s amendment 46, which would remove the proposed extension of the review period to 15 months, particularly interesting because I agree with Labour Front-Bench Members that the Government have not adequately explained the effect of changing the review period. More could have been done to provide the Committee with information about the reason for the extension and the decision-making process behind it. On that basis, I would be happy to support the Labour party, but that is not to say that the Government could not come back in future years with reasonable information to justify the extension and set out the impact on the tax take.
Labour’s amendment 43 would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the impact of introducing the diverted profits tax in 2019-20—something else that the Government have not adequately explained. We would like a little more information on matters such as the difficulties for organisations resulting from the tax’s implementation and its impact on the Exchequer, because we need to balance those things when we make decisions on tax changes.
The Scottish National party’s amendment 37, which would require the Chancellor to review the effect on public finances of the diverted profits tax provisions in the Bill, is broader than some of the specific requests that have been made for individual pieces of information. I understand the Minister’s point that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs regularly provides information to the general public about the diverted profits tax, but I think we could have been given a little more information about the proposals’ expected effect on revenue and on the tax gap.
Finally, I know that explanatory notes do not form part of a Bill, but the “Background note” sections are usually quite useful. However, I did not find the background note on clause 18 useful in the slightest, because it does not give a huge amount of information about the rationale behind the Government’s decision or behind the individual changes being made to the diverted profits tax. It simply says:
“This measure supports that aim”—
the aim behind the diverted profits tax—
“through amendments to close tax planning opportunities.”
If it had given a little more information about what those amendments are and what they mean, the Minister would have avoided facing quite so many questions from the Committee.
Mel Stride
I understand what the hon. Lady says, but the expression “preventing avoidance”, which she has just used, lies at the heart of the meaningful distinction. DPT is about avoidance, as eloquently expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole, whereas the digital services tax is not about avoidance at all; it is about reflecting the fact that the international tax regime is no longer fit for purpose when it comes to taxing certain types of digital businesses—those that operate through digital platforms, and that have a relationship with UK users and generate value as a consequence. She mentioned Google specifically, but it covers search engines in general, certain online marketplaces and social media platforms.
The two taxes are so distinct. It is important to place on the record that the digital services tax is not an anti-avoidance measure; it is about redefining the way in which those businesses pay their fair share of tax.
Kirsty Blackman
To probe further the point made by the hon. Member for Oxford East, does the Minister not agree that it would be valuable for the Committee to consider the two different types of taxation, and their efficacy, so that in future when decisions are made on tax matters we can work out which would be the best type of tax measure in any given situation?
Mel Stride
It is important to review or consider all taxes in relation to other taxes as a matter of course, because they all have their own positive aspects, distortionary effects, negative aspects, impacts on the economy that might not be desirable, and so forth. It is important that we do that for all taxes. I say to the hon. Lady that, in the case of the digital services tax, we are now consulting on the detail of how that might operate should we introduce it in 2020, in the event that there is not a multilateral movement across the OECD or the European Union that allows us to work in conjunction with other tax jurisdictions. In the case of the specific tax that we are considering in Committee, there will be ample opportunity to look at it in the kind of detail that I know she will be keen on.
The hon. Member for Oxford East raised the issue of the split, as I understood it, between the impact of DPT as directly revenue raising through the additional corporation tax that is paid, and the deterrent effect that protects revenues that otherwise would have been avoided. We publish annual statistics that show how much tax DPT raises directly and how much it raises indirectly through corporation tax. This year, we published a detailed note setting out the methodology that was used to calculate the revenue raised by DPT, and I am happy to provide the hon. Lady with either that information or a signpost to where it can be found.
The hon. Lady raised the specific issue of the three-month extension that we have been considering in Committee. She made the point well: rather than extending the period by three months, why do we not stick to 12 months and expect the corporation in question to speed up their process? I think we would still be left with the problem that there would have to be a moment in time when that company could still provide information—HMRC would be required to take it into account—which might be of a very complex nature. It would be very difficult for HMRC to make an immediate and reasonable judgment at the last minute. I think that is what drives the importance of separating the time available to the corporation in those circumstances from the additional time that is available solely to HMRC to conduct its final review without additional information suddenly appearing at extremely short notice. I should also point out that the 12-month process is already an accelerated process, and typically we are—in circumstances where the additional three-month time period becomes pertinent—looking at very complex situations, which take time to consider fully.
On the basis of the extract that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North presented to the Committee, it seems to me that more information could have been given in the explanatory notes to make it absolutely clear what it refers to. I will have a closer look at that outside the Committee.
Kirsty Blackman
I rise to speak very briefly on this clause. The questions that have been asked by the Opposition are incredibly useful and interesting ones; they have gone into this matter in some detail. Given the amendments that they have put forward, the SNP will be happy to support any of them that are pressed to a vote.
Mel Stride
May I address very directly the question that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde has posed regarding consultation and the level of consultation before the announcement, which of course he recognises is in part at least due to the fact that on announcing this measure we do not want to have forestalling in terms of businesses taking investment decisions?
Indeed, with matters or measures of this kind, we have a number of things that we need to balance. As I say, we need to ensure that businesses do not delay investment; we also have to give businesses the certainty they need that the measures will actually be implemented; and we are of course consulting on the technical details, including the very pertinent issue of the qualifying use that he referred to. And we will of course consult on the draft legislation when it is brought forward.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the figures and the cost of this measure, and how that cost has been established. The OBR will score these measures in the normal manner. He also made the specific point about the desirability of these reliefs being available to construction projects and other qualifying activities overseas. Of course one should make the point that that would occur only where it was on the part of a company that fell due to the UK corporation tax charge, and would reflect exactly the same situation in reverse, were it to be, say, a French business constructing something in the United Kingdom and in turn receiving reliefs from the French tax authorities. So it is a kind of equality of treatment in those particular respects.
The UK was previously the only G7 economy that gave no capital relief on structures and buildings. The CBI’s recent report, “Catching the peloton”, asked the Government to explore how the incentive regime could support investment in commercial buildings. [Laughter.] I am assuming that this is some kind of sub-atomic particle that requires a Large Hadron Collider, or whatever these things are, to be built, with huge tax reliefs associated with it.
The Government recognise the importance of providing tax reliefs for genuine business costs, supporting investment and growth, and driving our future prosperity. Therefore, this relief will reduce the cost of doing business in the UK, alongside our corporation tax reductions.
The changes made by clause 29 will give the Government the power to introduce secondary legislation, as we have discussed, to provide capital allowance on the costs of non-residential structures and buildings. Key features of the policy are outlined in the technical note published on Budget day, which invites businesses to express views on detailed aspects of this policy.
This legislative process will provide taxpayers with certainty that the allowance will come into force as soon as possible, while allowing the Government to consult on important policy decisions. The new relief will provide businesses with an additional £1.9 billion of tax relief in the next six years, growing to £2 billion annually by year 50. The allowance will be available to any unincorporated or incorporated business that builds a new structure or a building, or that acquires one directly from a developer. The allowance will apply across all sectors and sizes of UK trade, improving our collective economic position as we go into 2019 and beyond.
Amendments 57 and 60 seek to commit the Government to carry out and lay before the House a report on the consultation with stakeholders on arrangements for the allowance. The Government, however, have already invited stakeholders’ views on the detailed aspects of the allowance, and have made it clear to the public that a further technical consultation will be issued on the draft secondary legislation. That is set out in the technical note, published alongside the 2018 Budget.
Amendments 58 and 59 seek a Government review of the revenue effects and the uptake of the relief among different-sized businesses. The estimated revenue effects have been published in the Budget 2018 document. The relief is expected to provide £1.9 billion of additional support over the next six years to businesses of all sizes. That figure has been subject to detailed challenge and to the scrutiny of the independent Office for Budget Responsibility.
Amendment 58 requests that the Government lay a report on the revenue effects before the House within six months of the enactment of the Bill. That would not be technically possible, due to the time needed for businesses to make new claims and for the Government to carry out the necessary analysis. However, HMRC publishes annually the cost of capital allowances claimed and the capital allowances available, split by asset type and by industry, in the “Estimated costs of the principal tax reliefs” and “Corporation Tax Statistics” documents. Those publications will include the new allowance costs as soon as sufficient data are available. I therefore urge hon. Members to withdraw their amendments, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Finance (No. 3) Bill (Third sitting)
Kirsty Blackman Excerpts(6 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to take part in the debate with you in the Chair, Mr Howarth. It is good to take part in this interesting debate on the changes that the Government propose.
We are happy to support Labour amendments 39 and 38. If it is pushed to a vote when the time comes, we shall support new clause 4, but I make it clear that it is not our position that corporation tax should be changed in the way the Labour party suggests. However, the new clause asks for a review of the effect of the potential change and we think it is reasonable that Opposition policies, as well as the Government’s, should be scrutinised. It is, I think, fairly reasonable for us to support the review on that basis.
Our amendment 35, as the hon. Member for Oxford East said, is similar to one of the Labour amendments. Its aim is to have a review of the effect on public finances of the expected change, including in relation to the tax gap. I do not want to contradict the hon. Lady, but the Government have put out two sets of contradictory figures on the revenue implications for the Exchequer. The Government’s 29 October policy document links to the original numbers she cited. It gives a link to more information and then provides figures contradictory to those in the policy document.
The policy document does not have the £690 million figure; it predicts an increase of £700 million in 2020-21, a reduction of £300 million in 2021-22, a reduction of £15 million in 2022-23 and, crucially, a reduction of £20 million in 2023-24. The previous set of figures said that the impact would be negligible in the fourth year. Now the Government are suggesting that there will be a decrease in the amount of money coming into the Exchequer as a result of the change. Presumably, we may imagine that the reduction will continue in future years, whereas the Government previously argued that their previous figures were correct, when they predicted not much of an increase or decrease either way in future years.
I was slightly confused by the information that the Government provided, and it would be useful to have clarity about which figures are correct, and why the policy document contains one set of figures but links to a different set on the website. Possibly a change needs to be made there, as the link to more information takes people somewhere that does not give more information—it contradicts the original information provided. I found it quite difficult to wade through that. Given what I have outlined, it is even more important that our amendment should be accepted. We need clear information from the Government, and a clear idea of what revenue effects are, or are not, expected.
Another thing that was mentioned in an earlier consultation document is the expectation that it will cost HMRC £160,000 to make the changes necessary to put the new system in place. That also needs to be teased out in the information provided. The amendment would reduce the effect on public finances, and that would include any additional spend required by HMRC staff as a result of the suggested changes.
I am concerned that there is a lack of transparency about the conflict between the two sets of figures provided, and that the Government have not been particularly clear about their intentions behind the change. I understand that they feel that making the change would put everyone on a more level playing field, but surely they should do that only if they expect a change to have a positive impact. There is no point in moving people from being liable for one tax to being liable for another tax to reduce the impact on the Exchequer, if that is the only predicted change.
Perhaps the Government want the extra money in year one, because they feel that Brexit will be such a disaster that we could do with extra money in year one, and they are willing to take the hit in future years. Given the potential impact on future years, the change will not be revenue-neutral in future. If the Government think that it will be, it would be useful to know that.
Having said all that, I am not clear about the Government’s intentions behind the change; it would be good if they could explain the rationale behind what they are doing. I have looked at the explanatory notes and they do not make it much clearer. The Government may think that this system is fairer. If that is their view, it would be useful for them to explain that.
I am not sure whether we will press the amendment to a vote; that depends a lot on the Minister’s response, the information he provides and any follow-up information he commits to providing.
Mel Stride
I thank colleagues for their contributions. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North asked about the rationale for making this change, and whether it was simply to treat everybody equally—there is clearly a point to that, but is it sufficient to justify the change? Equality of treatment has its merits, but, as I explained in my opening remarks, there is the issue of bringing into the corporation tax regime those who hitherto have been engaged in activities that fall due to income tax rather than corporation tax. With that come all the anti-avoidance measures, including the corporate interest restriction, the hybrid mismatch regime, the carried-forward income loss restrictions and the capital gains and loss restrictions that were set out in the recent Budget. That is quite an important point.
Kirsty Blackman
I thank the Minister for attempting to explain. Pulling those people into all those anti-avoidance measures still results in a negative impact on the Exchequer. I contend that there may be no point in pulling them into these different measures if there is no positive benefit to be had from doing so.
Mel Stride
The latest OBR estimate is that the changes will raise £365 million across the forecast period, although I will come to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Oxford East about the timing of the figures. She referred to the consultation that we carried out between March and June 2017; we came back with our report on 1 December 2017. Draft legislation for the UK property income measure was published on L-day on 6 July, and the technical consultation was run until 31 August 2018. Responses were received from representative bodies from the property retail sector and accountancy firms. The measure was consulted on pretty thoroughly.
On the timing issues raised by the hon. Lady, the way in which the Office for National Statistics tax accounting treatment works means that increased corporation tax receipts are scored in the year of implementation, but the corresponding reduction in income tax receipts is scored in a subsequent year. There is a mismatch between the moneys coming in under the CT arrangements and the moneys that have been transferred into that regime, which do not go into the scorecard until a year later. That would largely explain the profile to which she referred.
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady is right that HMRC will be privy to the information, but there is a difference between being privy to the information and treating with individuals and companies in terms of their tax return. Collating all that information and presenting it in the form that she envisages is a distinct activity.
I undertake to write to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North about the online number that she discovered and the numbers that were provided in the policy document. I wish I was so good that I just knew all the answers and was over the detail to that degree, but I will certainly write to her on that, and on the cost of making the changes to the system. I am happy to have a look at the £160,000 figure that she raised and see how it breaks down.
Kirsty Blackman
If possible, it would also be useful to know before we come back on Report whether the Government expect the revenue impact for the Exchequer to be negative in future years, beyond the four-year timescale that is predicted. That makes a difference in terms of whether it is, as the Minister says, a good measure across the four years or a really bad measure across 10 or 12 years.
Mel Stride
I think I am right in saying that over the longer term, in revenue terms the measure is likely to be broadly neutral. The OBR, of course, will only cast out across the scorecard period. It will not analyse the fiscal impacts beyond that, but if the hon. Lady would care to write to me with any questions on that, to the extent that I can answer them of course I will do so.
I commend the clause and the schedule to the Committee.
Anneliese Dodds
I agree with my hon. Friend. When we are talking about this sector in particular, we must always bear in mind the impact not only on revenue but overall on investment and the need to ensure that high-quality infrastructure is provided. I know that that is enormously important and something that the Minister is concerned with and working on. For the reasons I have set out, we will press amendment 38 to a vote.
On new clause 4, I say in response to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North that there may be some agreement on some issues, but on corporation tax rates there is a difference to the extent that Labour feels that we need to work with other countries to prevent a race to the bottom. That is something we have already been doing. A race to the bottom is damaging, particularly when many businesses tell us that the corporation tax rates do not drive their decision to locate in the UK; they may be one of a basket of factors, but other matters, particularly sunk costs, are important. Therefore, we are happy for our proposals to come under scrutiny at every point, and we hope that in doing so we might persuade the SNP to come to our view as well.
Kirsty Blackman
To be totally clear—I am sure the hon. Member for Oxford East did not mean this—we do not support a race to the bottom either. Our manifesto position was that we supported no further reductions in corporation tax, which is slightly different from the Labour party position.
In the spirit of trying not to take up too much of the Committee’s time and the fact that amendments 35 and 38 are broadly similar and we have covered the ground of both amendments quite a lot during the course of the debate—although the answers we received could have been clearer—we are happy not to press amendment 35 and to support Labour party amendment 38.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5
Non-UK resident companies carrying on UK property businesses etc.
Amendment proposed: 38, page 210, line 45 [Schedule 5], at end insert—
“Part 2A
Annual review of effects of this schedule
34A (1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must undertake an annual review of the effects of the provisions of this Schedule on corporation tax receipts.
(2) The report of the review under sub-paragraph (1) must be laid before the House of Commons before—
(a) in respect of the first review, within 12 months of this Schedule coming into force, and
(b) in respect of each subsequent review, within 12 months of the date on which the report of the previous review was laid before the House of Commons.”—(Anneliese Dodds.)
This amendment requires an annual review of the revenue effects of this Schedule, in each year following the Schedule coming into force.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis
Kirsty Blackman Excerpts(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mel Stride
My right hon. and learned Friend raises a number of points. The paper does not duck the question of the economic impact of the proposed deal compared to the status quo—the relationship with the European Union as it persists today. It makes it very clear that it will be detrimental in the economic sense. That is extremely clear. But I would put it to him that the deal is the best for the economy going forward as part of a deal that also delivers on several other things, some of which are entirely non-economic, such as control of our borders and free movement.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Before and after the EU referendum, the Scottish National party said that leaving the EU would damage our economy. In December 2016, almost two years ago, the Scottish Government produced “Scotland’s Place in Europe”, our compromise position that makes it clear that, second only to staying in the EU, remaining in the single market and the customs union would be the best thing for Scotland’s economy and for the economy of the UK as a whole. The Prime Minister’s deal will cost every person in Scotland £1,600 compared to staying in the EU. The economy will grow more slowly. The agri-food sector will be particularly affected across all scenarios. Trade deals that we might strike will only increase GDP by a potential 0.2%. Public sector net borrowing will be higher. In what alternative reality is this a good deal?
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady is arguing to remain in the European Union. That would not respect the will of the British people as expressed in the referendum, the largest turnout in any electoral event in this country’s history. She talks about the imposition of trade barriers and the impact on the economy. There would be few impacts worse, I suggest, than Scotland becoming independent and having a customs barrier between ourselves and Scotland.
Finance (No. 3) Bill (Second sitting)
Kirsty Blackman ExcerptsTuesday 27th November 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Finance Act 2019 View all Finance Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 November 2018 - (27 Nov 2018)
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Many of the points that I was going to make have been covered by the hon. Member for Bootle. However, a few things require to be dwelt on for more time or should be looked at from a slightly different angle.
When I first became aware of the Opposition’s amendments, I did not think that it was a tack that they should take. However, when I looked into the information behind them and at the detail, I discovered that it is actually a very sensible tack to take, for a number of reasons. I note the comments about the 4,000 Scottish jobs that could be affected. It is important to note the number of jobs that could be affected by any changes to this area, particularly through tweaks to the benefit-in-kind system.
I also point out the number of new car registrations, which the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has on its website. There has been a 7.2% fall in the year to date, which is incredibly significant. If the Government are thinking about ensuring that companies have those up-to-date cars with the lowest emissions, it is really important that companies are incentivised to ensure that their employees drive an up-to-date fleet, rather than older cars.
The other thing to note is that registrations in October 2018 were at their lowest level since 2013, which is significant. We might expect low numbers when we were coming out of a recession, but there has been a significant drop in registrations over the past year. It is important that the Government think about this wider context when making these decisions.
It is particularly important to note the impact of these changes on the industry, given the context of Brexit and the concerns raised by the car industry. Now is not a good time to consider making changes that are likely to negatively impact the automotive industry, particularly given the nature of its supply chains, which are so integrated with European Union countries. There is the potential for those supply chains and those manufacturing businesses and jobs to move wholesale to the EU, rather than the integrated supply chains that we have now being maintained. It is important to note that wider context when making any changes, because the Bill will not act in isolation; it will have to operate in the context of whatever potential economic hit will come from Brexit.
On the ICAEW’s comments about the potential for an accidental charge following emergency repairs, I agree with the hon. Member for Bootle that the Government might need to amend the Bill further in order to make it workable, so that it does what they intend it to do. If we are not going to listen to the utmost experts on this issue, what is the point in having the consultation? If we are to have a consultation, it will be meaningful only if the Government listen and actually make the suggested changes. These people are the experts and negotiate the tax system on a daily basis, so they are the ones who can highlight potential problems.
To expand on that a little bit, I totally accept that protecting the Treasury is important in the changes being made, and that the Government are attempting to protect the Treasury from problems that it did not necessarily foresee when it created the Bill in the first place. However, there are changes to the Finance Bill every year. As the hon. Member for Bootle said, this is the fourth Finance Bill Committee that I have served on, and every year there seem to be different changes to benefit in kind issues. I understand that the Treasury is trying to protect itself, but if there is an immensely complex tax system and it is changed every year, it is difficult for people to comply with the legislation, even those who are trying to do so. I think that the Government need to think more carefully and do some sort of sensible review, as suggested by the Opposition, into the whole landscape of benefit in kind issues and then make changes in one go, so that they are easily understood and can be complied with them. As I said earlier, there is no point having a tax system if people do not understand it and cannot pay the tax because they do not understand how they are supposed to comply with the system.
That also has a knock-on effect on the automotive industry. If it is too difficult for employees to claim the relief that they are supposed to be able to claim, or to have the benefit in kind accepted as such, as they are supposed to, it means that fewer companies will be willing even to attempt to comply with the legislation. I think that it is really important, in terms of the new vehicles and ensuring that the Government can collect the correct tax.
In relation to whether or not this is a stealth tax, I would certainly say that there are stealth changes being made to these taxes, and not ones that have been widely publicised or understood well enough by individuals having to go through the system. If the only way to comply with tax changes is to ensure that you have a very good tax lawyer or tax adviser in place, then I would suggest that the system is a bit too confusing. It should be easier for people to jump through the hoops that are in place, and constant changes by the Government are not helping.
I will speak briefly to the proposed amendment. The explanatory notes, on pages 14 and 15, state that this was first proposed in the autumn statement 2016 and put through a technical consultation. The Government are having to make changes in relation to the anomalies that were raised. The Government decided to take action to protect the Exchequer at the first opportunity. Although this was consulted on, the Government did not see the potential pitfalls in the way they put forward the legislation. Therefore, either the consultation was deficient or the Government’s ability to listen to the consultation responses was deficient. There was certainly an issue with the process.
I am pleased that the Government have changed their ways—or have said that they will—about the number of Finance Bills we are going to have in any given year, especially as I have served on four Finance Bills since 2016, and I only avoided one in 2017 because a general election was called. That seems to me to be too many tax changes in any year, given that we still have all the changes happening on a significantly more than annual basis. I think the Government need to take a step back in some of these situations and have a much more wide-ranging look at the issues, particularly in relation to benefits in kind. Every single year there are changes in the benefits in kind legislation in the Finance Bill, which every year we have stood up and debated.
First, we need to look at the whole system of benefits in kind and then make decisions about the entire system that are easily understood by people. People are much more likely to comply if they can actually understand the legislation. If there are constant changes, that makes it is much more difficult for people to jump through the hoops they are supposed to jump through and to pay the correct tax that they are supposed to pay.
Secondly, in relation to the impact on the automotive industry, I am particularly pleased that the Labour party has put forward the amendment about the different regions and nations of the UK. It is really important that we consider the differential impact, not least in the context of Brexit. Areas where there is significantly more manufacturing, such as the north of England, are likely to be hardest hit by the economic shock resulting from Brexit. That is shown across the Whitehall analysis papers. If they are being hit by that, we do not want them to be hit by other things. Doing that analysis on a regional basis is really important.
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Members for Bootle and for Aberdeen North for their contributions to the debate.
Clause 7 makes two changes to ensure that the optional remuneration arrangement—OpRA—rules for cars and vans work as intended. First, the clause addresses an anomaly in the OpRA legislation. Under current legislation, the value of any connected costs is not included when calculating the value of the amount foregone. That was not the original policy intention. It is important to note that we are not looking at new measures as such; we are looking at closing loopholes and ensuring that the original legislation passed in 2017 operates as intended. The clause ensures that the value of the amount forgone includes any costs connected with the taxable car or van, such as servicing and insurance. The clause also ensures that the value of the deduction available for a capital contribution is adjusted if a company car is made available for only part of the tax year. Again, that brings the original intention of the legislation into effect.
Kirsty Blackman
The Minister said that an oversight was made in relation to the legislation as drafted. Does he share my concern that the Government should not be making oversights in tax legislation and agree that, in fact, the process we have for scrutinising tax legislation is therefore deficient?
Mel Stride
I certainly accept the hon. Lady’s contention that oversights are never acceptable—of course they are not. As I set out, there was significant consultation and scrutiny of both the policy measure and the detailed legislation. Unfortunately, on this occasion the two issues being highlighted here did not come to the appropriate attention in the drafting of the 2017 legislation. If the hon. Member for Aberdeen North is saying that there was insufficient scrutiny, I do not believe that was the case, given the large amount of scrutiny applied in this circumstance.
The changes are expected to affect a small proportion of the 1 million or so individuals who are provided with a company car or van for private use. The average cost of the changes for those affected has been estimated at between £120 and £140 a year in extra tax. There will also be a slight increase in national insurance contributions for employers, in line with the original policy intent. The Exchequer yield from the changes is estimated to be negligible, but by stopping the growth of separate arrangements, significant amounts could be protected.
The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon suggested that the issue of emergency repairs needed to be looked at in greater detail. That is already covered by the legislation. As the explanatory notes state, the clause
“does not affect the operation of sections 239(1) and (2) in relation to other payments or benefits. For example, should an employer reimburse an employee for costs incurred (such as replacing a tyre), the exemption in section 239(2) will still apply.”
HMRC will also ensure that that is reflected clearly in the guidance.
Kirsty Blackman
Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that when he says Charity Commission, he also means OSCR, which is the relevant body in Scotland?
Peter Dowd
Yes, I agree to that point of clarification. That is the intention. The Charity Commission and the Scottish body would no doubt recognise the seriousness of this problem, and in their strategy for dealing with fraud, they make the following point:
“The commission continues to see, and has to act on, serious problems arising in charities in relation to poor financial management and inadequate financial controls, accounting and record keeping. In 2010-11, out of 1,912 completed compliance assessment cases, the proportion involving serious concerns about fraud, theft and other significant financial and fundraising issues increased from 16% the previous year to 26%.”
Figures for subsequent years can be found in the commission’s annual publication “Tackling abuse and mismanagement”. The commission goes on to say:
“The National Fraud Authority in its annual fraud indicator report of 2012 estimated annual losses of £1.1 billion, or 1.7% of annual charity income during 2010-11.”
There is therefore a problem, because that is cash not going where it was intended. The impact of fraud and financial crime on a charity, particularly smaller charities, can be significant, going beyond financial loss and the impact of the financing of a charity’s planned activity. These crimes cause distress to trustees, and so on, and have an adverse effect on the charity. It is important to deal with them, says the Charity Commission.
If the Treasury is going to offer tax incentives for charitable donations, it is vital that the proper safeguards are in place to ensure that tax forgone does not act as an incentive to other risks. For example, from my understanding, the Charity Commission holds the only centralised list of registered charities; therefore a clear procedure for HMRC and the Charity Commission to communicate would be necessary to guarantee tax exemption. That is important.
Peter Dowd
In relation to the amendment, it is important to ensure that, where charitable donations are given—whomsoever they are given by and to—the giver knows, in good faith, that the cash that they give will go towards genuine charitable purposes. That is the key issue. Whether the definition of “charity” is open to debate in relation to any organisation is another matter. The key, and the point I think my hon. Friend is trying to make, is that charities really ought to be charities.
We hope that a statement on the discussions between the Charity Commission and the Chancellor would address some of these issues. It continues to be a big issue in this country that people who can afford to pay their taxes should pay their taxes. It is important that anybody who gives to a charity can rest assured that their charitable donation, won through their hard work, will be used with the best intentions. Our amendment would, in all good faith, ensure that.
Kirsty Blackman
The Committee will be glad to hear that I will speak only briefly. I am happy to support the Opposition’s amendments. I want to focus on amendment 16, which deals with the communication that is needed between HMRC and the charities regulator. That is incredibly important. We need such communication for individuals to be assured that their money will go to the right place and that the correct tax exemptions exist for that.
Amendment 16 would require the Chancellor to make a statement to the House
“detailing discussions between Her Majesty’s Government and the Charity Commission regarding the provisions of this section.”
If the Minister is minded not to accept the amendment, which is very sensible and the provisions of which it would be easy for the Government to carry out, is he willing to write to Opposition Members about the discussions between the charities regulators in England and Scotland and the Government, the nature of those discussions and the advice the Government have received from charities on the potential impact of the clause? Will he also cover the eloquent point made by the hon. Member for Bootle about ensuring that protection from fraud is built into any changes that are made under the clause?
If the Minister is minded to accept the amendment, that would be grand. If he is not, will he commit to contacting us with those details so that we are aware of the discussions the Government have had and we can be both comforted that our constituents who decide to give their benefits to charity can do so knowing they are less likely to be the victims of fraud as a result, and aware that HMRC is across the issue and ensuring that people do not unintentionally become victims as a result of the changes?
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I must admit that I am a little surprised by the clause, because it looks to me like the Treasury is giving away money. These days, many people are in pension schemes and, when they die, there is some money. That might go to a relative, but they might wish for it to go to a charity. The Government are being big hearted—dare I say big societied—with the clause, in that they want the individual who goes to meet their maker to leave some of their resources to a charity that is dear to their heart.
My guess is that Cats Protection and various dog charities will be the biggest beneficiaries of the clause, but it will come down to either an employer making a judgment depending on what their employee wanted, or, in the process of probate, a solicitor taking a decision that a particular charity should get that money. In most cases, we probably are not talking about multi-millionaires, and sadly, not enough people have sufficient pension or death benefits. We are probably talking about small sums of money. The simplest solution, given that there is already quite a wide definition, is to widen that definition a little more to allow someone who cares passionately about heritage or pets or some inner-city regeneration scheme to direct the money to their cause rather than to Her Majesty’s Treasury.
I am a bit worried about Treasury Ministers being so generous in introducing the clause, but it probably makes sense on better regulation terms—on reducing some of the red tape when people end up dying. It will give a little more scope for people to dispose of the money that they have earned, because they have worked all their lives for that pension, and when they die, I think it not unreasonable that they should leave it to the cause that they particularly want to support.
Kirsty Blackman
This is a process question for the Minister about going forward and ensuring that we scrutinise legislation in the best way. It would have been helpful if, in the explanatory notes, there had been some comment provided by the Scottish and Welsh Governments because both measures involve making changes that affect devolved benefits.
Given the devolved and reserved aspects of many of the matters we are discussing, I again make the case for a geographical split in the changes that the clause makes. There could have been specific Scottish, Welsh, RUK or whole UK sections, which would have made effective scrutiny easier. I emphasise that it would have been incredibly helpful to have that. I suggest for next year’s Finance Bill that, if the Government make changes of this nature, they could make both changes to ensure the most appropriate scrutiny.
I am happy to support the Opposition amendment. The hon. Member for Bootle made a powerful case about the gendered impact of the social security changes of recent years and the fact that women have been disproportionately hit by them. We do not want to see those changes exacerbated by a tax system that amplifies the issues faced by women as a result of the Government’s policies on social security. I am comfortable supporting the Opposition’s amendment and I plead with the Minister to consider making the changes that I have requested for future years.
Anneliese Dodds
It is an enormous pleasure to be in this Committee with you in the Chair, Ms Dorries, and to make my first brief speech here. I would like clarification from the Minister on the specific issue of tax treatment of council tax reduction schemes. Subsection (5) on page 8 of the Bill refers to “a” council tax reduction scheme, stating that
“Payment under a council tax reduction scheme”
is exempt from income tax. However, page 26 of the explanatory notes refers to
“the” council tax reduction scheme.
I am sure that colleagues will know that there is no longer one council tax reduction scheme across the UK, since central Government decided to top-slice that form of social security and devolve the design of it to different local authorities, albeit with the stipulation that the protection should be maintained for older people. Only a very small number of local authorities still provide full council tax relief, including council tax relief for low-income families. I am enormously proud that Oxford City Council is one of those.
Central Government have washed their hands of responsibility for this benefit. They have refused to provide figures on take-up, for example, in response to parliamentary questions that I have tabled. They have also refused to provide figures on the number of low-income people now being taken to court because they cannot pay council tax, because they are no longer provided with the relief. I am not cavilling over semantics when I ask the Minister to make crystal clear that the exemption from income tax provided in the Bill will apply to all council tax reduction schemes, not to some particular version of those schemes that the Government might wish to focus on.
Related to that, I heard a very worrying rumour that the Government might seek spuriously to argue that funds spent on council tax relief for families by local authorities should not be counted in central Government’s assessment of local authorities’ expenditures, because they are, in theory, discretionary. I disagree fundamentally with that position, because it would penalise those authorities that support the worst off. It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that, just as I hope he will confirm that council tax relief for families is viewed as legitimate in the Bill, and for income tax purposes, it will be viewed as legitimate expenditure when it comes to the allocation of central Government support for local authorities.
Kirsty Blackman
I will speak relatively briefly. It is always difficult to follow the hon. Member for Oxford East, who is leading for the Opposition on these measures. I concur with her comments about the Labour amendments—the Scottish National party will be happy to support them. Foreign ownership of properties and the impact on price is pertinent and relevant to the SNP proposal.
On amendment 34, the explanatory notes are incredibly difficult to follow. By the time we get to “ggg” in the explanatory notes, things become very difficult to refer to. If there is another explanatory note of that length in future years, it would be useful if the staff could come up with a better numbering system. As I say, it is difficult to refer to those sections when we are going around the alphabet for the third time.
The public register proposed by Labour is an interesting idea and, in principle, the Scottish National party is in favour. As I said, transparency is important when encouraging everybody to pay the correct amount of tax, because if tax owed is publicly known—the calculation of the tax gap is pertinent to this topic—people are more likely to pay. The Government should say clearly, “This is the amount of tax owed, this is how hard we are chasing it down and, as a result, this is the tax gap.” It bothers me that the Government say regularly that the UK tax gap compares favourably with that of other countries. It does not matter whether it compares favourably with other countries: any tax gap is a bad thing and, if one exists, the Government clearly need to work to ensure that they are reducing it as far as possible. Given the issues that have been brought up by Opposition Members and by many external organisations, it is clear that the Government could do more to reduce the tax gap. It is not good enough to say, “We are doing quite a good job, and therefore we should stop here.” The Government need to be able to say, “We are doing the best job on reducing the tax gap that we possibly can.”
On foreign ownership and the residential property price, I was disappointed that the Labour amendment on landholdings was not accepted—I understand the reasons why it was not allowed, but I would have been keen to debate it. There are specific Scotland-related issues not so much about residential property—that is an issue in Scotland but not to the same extent as it is in London—as about other landholdings. That is a significant problem in the Scottish context. Foreign ownership of those landholdings concerns a huge number of people in Scotland.
Regarding the benefits of transparency, the SNP has called for measures to reduce tax avoidance, and the Government have talked a good game about things like Scottish limited partnerships after a huge amount of pressure from the Scottish National party. However, we are still waiting for action. If the Government say they are doing positive things to reduce tax avoidance, they need to follow through. Rather than just producing a consultation, they need to take the required action to reduce the numbers of people who are abusing Scottish limited partnerships. We need the Government to be seen to be serious in this regard, and to take the action they have promised to take. The House operates on trust, and throughout my time in this place, I have seen a number of Opposition amendments withdrawn because ministerial teams from all Departments have given assurances. If the Government do not take action soon on Scottish limited partnerships, they risk seriously eroding that trust and may end up in a situation in which ministerial assurances, and particularly assurances from Treasury Ministers, are not accepted because the Government have not followed through previously.
The income tax, national insurance contribution and capital gains tax gap sits at about £13.5 billion, which is a significant amount of money. If any changes are being made to those taxes, and particularly to CGT, it is reasonable to ask about the impact on the tax gap, and reasonable for the Government to have those figures at their fingertips. They should be able to say not just what the impact is on the total tax take from any changes, but also what the impact is on the tax gap.
If the Government are talking about cracking down on tax avoidance, it is important that they prove to us that the tax gap is being reduced. It is not good enough to just say, “We think this measure will reduce tax avoidance.” The Government need to tell us by how much they will reduce tax avoidance. They need to be clear on the impact of those changes before they introduce them.
I intend to push amendment 34 to the vote if we have the opportunity to do so. I would be happy to support the Labour party on their amendment. I would also like to seek further assurance and a clarification from the Minister in relation to the pursuit of tax avoidance reduction measures, and a commitment from him that the Government will follow through on the tax avoidance reduction commitments they make today.
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Members for Oxford East and for Aberdeen North for their contributions. I compliment the hon. Member for Oxford East on arraying a mass of highly technical questions on a very technical area. I will do my best to answer her them, but I will write to her accordingly if I am unable to do so. She accurately mapped out the process that we have been going through for a number of years, moving into the space of the appropriate taxation of non-resident entities when it comes to property transactions. She recognises, as I do, that it is the right direction of travel, and that it is right to introduce the measures set out in clause 13, although she has several concerns about the detail.
The hon. Member for Oxford East dedicated a specific section of her remarks to the issue of property-rich businesses and the trading exemption. She gave some examples where she felt that this would be an inappropriate exemption, around both the general principle of the exemption for trading purposes and the specific threshold figure of 75%. She used the expression “cliff edge” to refer to what there might be around that number.
On the basic principle, this measure seeks to avoid the circumstances whereby a business—a significant supermarket chain, for example—might be sitting on a substantial amount of land and might even have banked some land for future development. However, the business’s principal purpose is the purchase and sale of a variety of goods, with that being the core of the particular business being looked at. Were a sale of that business under those circumstances to occur, it would seem appropriate that the investors in that business—where it was consequently below the 75% threshold—would not fall within the measures due to the taxation measures that we have been considering.
As to the specific figure of 75%, it is the same issue as the 25% threshold figure that the hon. Member for Oxford East raised in relation to whether individual investors would fall within these measures, or whether they would be expected to know or not know about the property richness of the business in which they were investing—we inevitably run into a generalised problem with figures, which is that we have to choose one. There will always be a debate about whether 75% is the right figure, or indeed 25%. However, a figure has to be applied, to make it scientific and rigorous.
Then there is the question of what we have done to ensure that 75% and 25% are the right figures, as opposed to figures that we have just plucked out of the air. That leads us to the extensive consultation that has been undertaken in respect of the Bill, with some 80 responses around the measures raised by the hon. Member for Oxford East. As I would say of all tax measures, this one included, they are kept under continuous review by the Treasury, so it is quite possible that we will return to these matters in future legislation, specifically on the issue of thresholds.
The hon. Member for Oxford East spent some time referring to the amendments and the question of whether there should be a register of those who fall within the scope of these capped measures. There is a basic principle here that just feels right to me, which is that the Government should not be in the business of holding up individuals to the public as falling due for particular types of tax. Once you start moving into that kind of space, it feels rather disproportionate and a little authoritarian, if I may say so. It is right to resist that urge.
I was going to raise one other matter in that context, which is important, and that is that the hon. Member for Oxford East referred—she very kindly did this for me although I did not do so in my opening speech—to the implementation of a register of beneficial owners of overseas entities owning or buying property in the UK. We will bring that in by 2021, and the register will be the first of its kind in the world. That underscores the importance of transparency to this Government.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for those comments, but I would like to clarify a few points, so that we are not talking at sixes and sevens. In relation to the trading exemption, the point is not that it would exempt certain categories of business as opposed to others, but that it would exempt those businesses that are trading before and after the disposal, so it introduces a new concept that is not applied to UK-resident investors to the same extent. That is what is relevant, rather than whether we are talking about a supermarket or not. That would be relevant to the property richness test, but the trading exemption is a separate element of the Bill that I was trying to push on.
In relation to the 25%, the Minister always valiantly attempts to support his Government’s policies. He is right that a figure must surely be attached to any numerical proposition in a Bill. He tried to do that here and said that 25% had been arrived at. The suggestion was that any figure could be contested. Again, it is not the specific value of that figure that is problematic, but what the figure refers to. My contention was that the Government should focus not necessarily on the proportion of the gain, but on the value of the gain. His Government have decided to focus not on the value but on the proportion. As I said, 25%—or rather, 20%—of a gain could be £1 million, which is a tremendously large value, but it could be a smaller proportion if it is just 20%.
Kirsty Blackman
Does the hon. Lady agree that having both of those in the Bill would be useful, so we could have the 25% figure or gains over £200,000, or any such figure as the Government deemed appropriate?
Kirsty Blackman
I am willing to try the patience of the Committee in this instance.
Amendment proposed: 34, in schedule 1, page 147, line 34, at end insert—
“21A The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expected revenue effects of the changes made to TCGA 1992 in this Schedule, along with an estimate of the difference between the amount of tax required to be paid to the Commissioners under those provisions and the amount paid, and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”—(Kirsty Blackman.)
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effect on public finances, and on reducing the tax gap, of the changes made to capital gains tax in Schedule 1.
Finance (No. 3) Bill (First sitting)
Kirsty Blackman Excerpts(6 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment (a), leave out—
“(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 29 November”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Date Time Witness Thursday 29 November Until no later than 12.15 pm HM Treasury; HM Revenue and Customs Thursday 29 November Until no later than 1.00 pm Office for Budget Responsibility Thursday 29 November Until no later than 3.30 pm The Institute for Fiscal Studies Thursday 29 November Until no later than 5.00 pm The Chartered Institute of Taxation”
Amendment (b), after “Tuesday 11 November;” insert—
“(1A) The Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table—
Amendment (c), at end insert—
“(4) The Committee recommends that the programme order of the House [12 November] should be amended in paragraph 7 by substituting ‘18 December’ for ‘11 December’.”
Kirsty Blackman
It is a pleasure to make the first substantial speech in this Finance Bill Committee—the first of many, I am sure.
Once again, the Scottish National party has tabled an amendment to the programme motion. It has concerned me for a long time that Finance Bill Committees do not take evidence and I think it would be better for the quality of debate if they did. This year, there are specific issues relating to the lack of consultation on the draft clauses and to the tight timescale for considering the Bill. I raised in Committee of the whole House my concerns about the fact that paper copies of the Bill were published on a Wednesday and we had to debate them on the Monday, which did not give us enough time given that the House was in recess. External organisations have also raised concerns about the lack of time for scrutiny, particularly for the unusually high number of clauses that were not consulted on in draft form. Glyn Fullelove of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, whom I quoted in Committee of the whole House, has been a particular critic of the process.
The SNP asks that, on Thursday, instead of having two normal sittings as planned, we take evidence from the Treasury, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Chartered Institute of Taxation. They all know more about the legislation than we do, so it would be incredibly useful to hear from them.
I must also point out that the Government have included several clauses to make changes to previous legislation that was deficient. If Government legislation is deficient, I contend that more consultation must be a good thing.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Given that, as I understand it, the Committee in the other House is taking evidence on elements of the Bill, surely the hon. Lady agrees that we should be afforded that opportunity in this House.
Kirsty Blackman
Absolutely. It is odd that the House of Lords is more democratic than this place in relation to the Bill.
The Finance Bill Committee should take evidence. I know that it is a long-standing convention that it does not, but having served on the Public Bill Committee on the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 and heard the evidence taken, I know how useful it was for Committee members and how many of them referred to it in subsequent debate. It was an incredibly useful exercise and the legislation that came forward was better as a result.
As I flagged up in last year’s Finance Bill debates, it is very good that external organisations have submitted written evidence, but I guarantee that the majority of hon. Members in this Committee have not read it all because of how little time we have had. Allowing us to question witnesses on the evidence that they provide on the Finance Bill Committee would be incredibly useful. The Government might not accept that this year, but can we consider taking evidence in future years? I am not the only one calling for this. The “Better Budgets” report produced by the Chartered Institute of Taxation and various other organisations called for the Finance Bill Committee to take evidence two and a half years ago, so external organisations have requested it, not just the SNP.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I hear what the hon. Lady says. Some of us have not been in the House for a great deal of time. I sat on the Housing and Planning Bill Committee, which lasted for 20 sittings, with a marathon sitting just before Christmas three years ago. We heard a great deal of evidence that significantly informed the debates. Some members of this Committee might have been on that one. Interestingly, some of the evidence we took proved to be absolutely spot on, because the Government subsequently ended up changing some of their housing policies. The Government made the same argument at the time: “No, we have thought this through. We have consulted”, but the ability to hear from experts who live and breathe these issues was beneficial.
It was the same on the Criminal Finances Bill, which covered a pretty niche area. The job of Parliament is to scrutinise legislation, so we need the tools to do that. Whichever party is in control, it has the full back-up of the civil service, who are themselves experts and, to their credit, know their work, but it is important that the Opposition are able to get independent assessment and adjudication of what the Government tell us. That does not mean I do not believe a word that Ministers say—I believe everything they say. It is just that we do not necessarily get the full facts. I have found it very useful in the past to have evidence sessions, and the Government should give serious consideration to that.
I think this is the fourth Finance Bill I have sat on in the past two years, although my recollection is not what it used to be. We have also had the customs Bill, which is also a finance Bill, so we have had effectively five finance Bills in a short period of time and in a time of incredible turbulence and change. There might not be a convention or a tradition to take evidence in Finance Bills, but there comes a time when we think, “This is as good a time as any to take evidence because the circumstances have changed substantially.”
We have also had what amounts to movement on the convention in relation to the amendment of the law. As everybody knows, it has been used only about half a dozen times since 1929 when Winston Churchill introduced it. It has been used six or seven times, including three times by the Government in less than that period in years. That is a substantive and significant change. The Minister kindly responded to my letter about that and indicated that it was not necessarily a significant change, but it is. If we as a Committee—as a House—have done something only six or seven times in the best part of 90 years, changing that convention is significant. For that reason as well, we need to take a step back and decide that perhaps we need evidence sessions to tease out some of those important things.
It would also give assurance to the House, to Back-Bench Members and to the public in general that we take those matters seriously and that it is not business as usual—that just because we have done something for years or decades, we do not carry on doing it regardless. It would send a message that, in these turbulent times, the House takes the country’s finances seriously.
Therefore, we should seriously consider taking evidence. After all, we are all open to public scrutiny in one fashion or another—in fact, there is no doubt that we welcome it, and I do not suggest that the Government do not welcome it too. If we do not object to that scrutiny, why do we not institutionalise it, do what other Committees have done in the past and take evidence? Let experts in their field challenge us, and let us challenge them.
Kirsty Blackman
One of the Government’s arguments against taking evidence is the fact that the Bill is split between the Committee of the whole House and the Bill Committee, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that we in the Bill Committee tend to consider the more technical amendments on which we most need evidence to make good legislation?
Peter Dowd
That is a perfectly fair point. Inevitably, when we get into Committee, the clauses that we discuss are very technical and it is those technical clauses for which we need some evidence.
At the end of the day, we have had written evidence from the Chartered Institute of Taxation on clauses 7, 11, 81 and several others, which I read with great interest. Some of the comments were very pertinent. It would have been a good opportunity to tease out some of the issues in those clauses in more detail. As I said, none of us are concerned about challenge—that is why we came into Parliament. We are here to be challenged, and that is the nature of our democracy.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I have just a few points about where we are going. There are a number of events in Parliament that get quite a lot of public interest; the Queen’s Speech is normally one and the Budget is another. People make representations to the Treasury in advance of the Budget, but afterwards the Financial Times and almost every insurance company, bank and accountancy firm produce reams of information on what changes have occurred. The one sure thing about the Budget is that a number of trees will be cut down, to supply information to the great British public on what changes have already occurred. Actually, I do not think that this is one of those Committees that needs to take lots of information, because most of us will have lots of information already.
One could substitute vested interests for the point about experts, because there are an awful lot of vested interests in this country. As a large Committee of the House of Commons, we sometimes have to navigate our way through that, so we could sit for months listening to vested interests on a whole range of subjects and not actually make any decisions. The purpose of this Committee is to look at what the Government have done, maybe make some decisions and then report back to the House.
Kirsty Blackman
On that point, is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that both the Treasury and HMRC have vested interests other than trying to make good law?
Sir Robert Syms
Out in the big wide world, there are an awful lot of people who would come to this Committee, given the chance. The biggest difficulty we would have would be deciding who to invite, and we could be sitting in this Committee for months. I think it is quite clear that most people understand the key points of the Budget, because lots of information has been produced. When I was in opposition and the Labour party was in government, I probably made a similar speech to the one made by the Opposition spokesman. The Minister will probably make the same speech that Labour Ministers made when we raised the same point. The only point of having additional information is that it helps the Opposition in tabling amendments. That is the only reason normally stated.
Sir Robert Syms
We could have a general rule that every single Committee of the House should take evidence on every single mater, but the problem is that Committee sittings would then last considerably longer. They would need to be staffed up and we would have difficulty getting Members to serve on the Committees and listen to all that evidence. Ultimately, governing is about taking decisions. There has to be a balance in understanding what points of view people take. We can sit here endlessly listening to advice, but we have to make choices.
Kirsty Blackman
We cannot sit hear endlessly listening to advice, because the Committee has to end by 11 December. We are talking about one day of taking information from people so that we can be better informed in the debates that we will have up until 11 December, at which point this Committee will end, because that is what the House has decided.
Sir Robert Syms
Members of the Committee have a mandate to scrutinise the Government. If we take one day out of that scrutiny, we are reducing our ability to question the Minister on some very important matters. Personally, I would like to take all the time to question the Minister on why decisions have been taken, and I am sure I will get very good answers.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries, and a pleasure to serve on my third Finance Bill Committee—I think that it is the fourth such Committee for the hon. Member for Bootle, but it is reassuring to see broadly the same team arrayed. We were a fairly jovial and decent lot in the last Committee, so I am pleased to be serving alongside them again. The hon. Member for Bootle said that he always believes everything that the Minister says, which is a fine start to our deliberations over the coming weeks. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole said that I was probably dusting off the previous Labour Government’s speech from when they were faced with the same questions. Indeed I have, so I hope that will be acceptable to Opposition Members.
Amendments (a), (b) and (c), tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, seek to revise the programme motion by introducing a day of oral evidence and extending the time spent in Committee. It is of course important that the provisions of the Bill receive sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. The Government’s tax policy making framework ensures that that occurs, and I do not think that evidence to a Public Bill Committee would effectively further that aim.
The amendments would introduce a day of oral evidence from, among others, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Office for Budget Responsibility. Let me be clear that I agree that effective parliamentary scrutiny of this and any other Finance Bill is crucial, and I am always open to considering how that can be improved. However, for the following reasons, I am not persuaded by the merits of delaying the Committee in order to allow oral evidence to be taken. We accept that any additional evidence sessions would certainly increase the amount of scrutiny of the Bill, but that is not the same as saying that, in the absence of such sessions, the scrutiny of the Bill would be insufficient—as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole has set out, there has been very considerable scrutiny already—or indeed that additional days of evidence would provide a proportionate response to the need for scrutiny.
First, in line with the new approach to tax policy making set out in the Government’s 2010 framework, the Government already undertake extensive consultation with stakeholders before legislating in the Finance Bill.
Kirsty Blackman
On that point, does the Minister not accept that this year that “extensive consultation” has not been as extensive as it has been in previous years, and nor as extensive as it should be?
Mel Stride
I do not accept that. As I will argue, there is a process that we go through, which starts with the Budget announcement. We then go into formal consultation, which is applied to a number of measures within the Bill. We also of course publish draft clauses—I think that was on 6 July this year. I believe that around 226 pages of draft legislation were published at that time out of a total Bill length of 315 pages. It is considerable. We have received written evidence, the Bill will go through this Committee, it was considered by Committee of the whole House, we will then have Report stage, and we will examine amendments all the way through. The level of scrutiny received by a Finance Bill is well in excess of most Bills that come before the House.
My second point, which was raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, relates to the fact that the Bill was considered in Committee of the whole House. Were the amendments to prevail, any evidence session in this Committee would not capture the important issues debated in Committee of the whole House. The Committee should be aware that Committee of the whole House is, I would argue, where the more important measures are considered, and they are put to the whole House rather than simply the members of this Committee.
Mel Stride
I am not going to be drawn into what may or may not happen in future—the usual channels and the Government of the day take those decisions—other than to say that this is not a unique occurrence. As the hon. Gentleman recognises, this has happened in the past. Indeed, the very argument that just because it has not happened in the past does not mean it should not happen now, which is being applied to the seeking of an additional day, could also apply to the amendment of the law resolution. It has happened in the past and this is not the first time with a Finance Bill. In fact, the two I have taken through the House to date have been subject to those provisions.
The IFS, the OBR and others produce analysis of Budget measures before or after the event. They also typically give oral evidence to the Treasury Committee on the Budget as a whole before the Committees on the Finance Bill. Oral evidence at a Public Bill Committee will replicate that analysis while limiting its scope to those parts of the Bill not selected for the Committee of the whole House.
Finally, the programming of business is a matter for business managers and the usual channels. Those channels establish the programme motion that was agreed by the Programming Sub-Committee, which is made up of Government and Opposition Members. They were not persuaded that oral evidence sessions would be beneficial and, I am afraid, neither am I. As such, I urge the Committee to reject the amendments.
Kirsty Blackman
The Minister’s argument does not make sense in relation to the things that are most important being discussed in the Committee of the whole House. I would contend that clause 1 is probably the most important in the Bill given that it allows Government to charge income tax for future years. I suggest that the ones discussed in the Committee of the whole House are the most political, as they are agreed between the usual channels, and ones where the Opposition tend to think they might be able to get a win out of the Government, as was adeptly proven last week with the number of amendments accepted by the Government. I take the opportunity to say that I am pleased about that, because our amendments are not often accepted—I am quite chuffed about that one.
The Public Bill Committee debates are on the more technical aspects. This is less political and less likely to be chewed over by the Financial Times on its front page because it is immensely technical. The tax code has changed significantly and increased massively in the past few years. There is a huge volume of tax legislation and lots of it is incredibly technical. The stuff we are discussing in the Public Bill Committee is immensely technical and I disagree with the Minister on how external organisations have raised concerns about how few of the draft clauses were consulted on.
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that this Committee will debate a number of technical clauses. Surely if they are technical, does that not lend itself to an examination based on written evidence based on, for example, approaching me with written questions or discussions or indeed a meeting, or perhaps a meeting that I can facilitate with officials present to get into the detail, rather than a broad brush quick day with various advisers and organisations that we quiz?
Kirsty Blackman
The Minister makes a slightly circular argument. He suggests that questioning him would help us to improve the legislation and that questioning external experts who have to apply tax changes would be less useful.
Peter Dowd
Does the hon. Lady agree that there is an issue? The Labour party tabled a number of amendments, 10 or 11 of which were ruled out of scope. I do not criticise that at all. There is no criticism—
Kirsty Blackman
I hope the Minister can answer my question in the positive. In the clauses, the devolved and reserved aspects are split. They are considered separately, which makes a huge amount of sense. I asked the Minister earlier whether he would consider doing that in future years for all clauses, particularly those similar to clause 5. I am not expecting a positive, definite answer that he will do that in future years, but will he commit to considering splitting the devolved and reserved aspects on income tax in future years, so that the House can better scrutinise legislation?
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, which we touched on in the Committee of the whole House. She will be aware that clause 3 is subject to the English votes for English laws process because non-savings earnings are devolved to Scotland, so that clause only applies to Northern Ireland, Wales and England, while clause 4 on the savings and dividend rates applies UK-wide. I understand her point and we will be happy to look at that in the future. As things stand, we support where we are at the moment in the division of those particular clauses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Corporation tax charge for financial year 2020
Kirsty Blackman
I will speak relatively briefly on clause 2 and the amendment. To begin with, it is clear that the SNP supports clause 2 and we are not going to argue against the Government having the ability to charge corporation tax next year. It is quite important they do that for a number of reasons. One is that, of all the taxes levied upon businesses, corporation tax is one of those better liked by them. It depends not just on fixed assets, like business rates, but on the profit businesses are making, so they feel less unhappy about paying as it is more of a fair tax than some of the others. It is only a fair tax, however, if it is charged and if the companies are paying the corporation tax they are due to pay.
As for the asks being put forward from the Opposition Front Bench on this, the Government should not be scared of publishing more extensive data than they do currently on the tax gap, particularly around corporation tax in this instance. If the Government were to do that, they would be incredibly transparent and, if they are as good at collecting corporation tax as they suggest, that would dissuade other people from trying to dodge the tax in the first place. This would be both transparent and good for scrutiny, while also dissuading those who are looking to see where they can dodge the system. If people knew that corporation tax was difficult to dodge—if the Government put forward that information—they would be less likely to try and dodge it.
On the issue of multinational corporations and what a small minority—by far a small minority, not all of them—do in trying to not pay the tax they owe in certain countries, the Government have made great play of trying to be global Britain and saying that after Brexit this is going to be, apparently, an outward-looking country. Where better to start being global Britain than by making multinational agreements on improving the tax system? That would be good for everybody.
Every country benefits if more of the tax owed by corporations is taken. Coming together with other countries across the world and making that something that the UK Government set out to do in this new global Britain landscape would be really good. This is about not just the Government trying to make trade deals and seeing what we can do to benefit us, but trying to make these multinational agreements where everybody would benefit. Companies looking to avoid tax would know it would be incredibly difficult to do that because countries across the world would come together. If the Government want to lead the world in anything, I suggest that reducing tax dodging is an area where they should try and think about doing so.
The comments from Opposition Front Benchers about HMRC staff were incredibly important. The SNP has consistently made the case against HMRC offices being closed on the basis that expertise is being reduced. I raised this issue during consideration of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. We can see where expertise is being reduced in areas such as Border Force, which previously had immigration-related staff and HMRC-related staff, who dealt with tax issues. Due to the Government’s political priorities, the two were put together. They particularly looked at immigration-related staff and improving Border Force’s capacity in that regard, rather than looking at improving capacity with regard to HMRC staff. In that instance, the Government chose not to increase the capacity to crack down on tax dodging and tax avoidance in relation to customs.
I am concerned that the changes to HMRC offices will result in more issues being overlooked. If the Government think they are doing a good job, they should not be scared to come forward with as much information as possible about this. That would achieve two things. First, it would allow them to be transparent and allow us to scrutinise them and ask the necessary questions, particularly about the tax gap and tax avoidance issues. Secondly, it would mean that people who were thinking of coming here to avoid tax would have that information and would see that the UK was not a good place for that.
Mel Stride
I shall come to the issue of the amendments momentarily. I would just say in conclusion to this debate on tax that it is a dangerous position for the Opposition to adopt. They are telling large businesses and entrepreneurs and the 5 million small businesses up and down the country that a significant tax hike is in theirs and the economy’s best interest when it clearly is not. The clause introduces the ability further to relieve that element of taxation.
The hon. Members for Bootle and for Oxford East spoke at some length about avoidance. The Government have an exemplary record on clamping down on avoidance, evasion and non-compliance. There have been 100-plus measures since 2010, bringing in and protecting some £200 billion in revenue, a vital amount of money for our public services.
As the Committee will be aware, we have one of the lowest tax gaps in the world at 6% for 2015-16, the last year for which figures are available. That compares very favourably with the record of the last Labour Government—in 2005-06, the figure was well above 7%. The difference would fund every policeman and woman in England and Wales. We recognise that bringing in tax receipts is extremely important.
On HMRC staffing, 28,000 full-time equivalents in HMRC are engaged in tax inspection. We have invested an additional £2 billion in HMRC since 2010 for that purpose. The fruits are already being seen in near record lows in the tax gap.
The hon. Member for Bootle urged us to work closely with the EU on tax avoidance. The Committee of the whole House debated clauses 20, 23 and 19 on control of foreign companies, exit taxation rules and certain anti-hybrid rules, all of which emanate from the EU anti-tax avoidance directive. We have been in the vanguard of the base erosion and profit shifting project, as the Committee will know, to clamp down on avoidance.
The hon. Members for Bootle and for Aberdeen North mentioned digital businesses. We need to understand the important point that, when we look at profits generated by companies through digital platforms and the interaction of UK consumers with them, we are not referring specifically to avoidance—the hon Member for Bootle may have suggested that. We are looking at the current international tax regime and whether it is fit for purpose in taxing that form of profit generation. The current regime basically assigns taxation rights to the jurisdiction when there is economic activity in that jurisdiction, as defined by the buildings, where the intellectual property rests, whether people are employed, where the risks are taken, where the management is domiciled and so on. We want to move to a situation where we are able to tax those businesses because of the profit generation—the value generation—that they are creating, as I have described.
Kirsty Blackman
It would be useful if, after this meeting, the Minister could write to us with details of countries with which he or his team have had discussions. Any other information about the nature of those discussions would be incredibly useful. so that we can be sure that the Government are taking this seriously on a multinational level.
Mel Stride
I would be very happy to do that. The hon. Member for Bootle specifically asked me what meetings I had had about the digital service tax measure. I have had personal interactions with a number of countries. I attended the OECD meeting in Paris some months ago where I furthered and put forward the UK’s position, which is broadly that we should work on a multilateral basis with the OECD and the EU so that we come to a collective agreement. The value of doing that is not limited to the fact that we would iron out any risks of double taxation that would result from going on a unilateral basis. However, we have also made very clear, as the Chancellor announced in the Budget, that we will unilaterally bring in just such a tax by 2020 in the absence of multilateral arrangements. I would be very happy to write to the hon. Lady with further detail on her specific question.
Amendments 8 and 9 seek to make the clause contingent on a report on how the corporation tax receipts of multinational companies and technology companies compare with their respective UK-based revenue. Like most countries, the UK taxes companies on their UK profits and not their UK revenues to reflect their ability to pay. Therefore, the proposed report would have limited relevance to policy. However, the Government have not been complacent about taking action within the rules of the international corporate tax system, as I have described.
Amendment 10 seeks to make the clause contingent on a review of HMRC’s effectiveness in applying the general anti-avoidance principles in relation to corporation tax collection. The Government apply a wide range of anti-avoidance measures, as I have set out, bringing in some £200 billion since 2010. The general anti-abuse rule, or GAAR, has been operational since 2013. Although the GAAR works principally as a deterrent, it has enabled HMRC to counteract the tax advantages that people try to gain by using abusive arrangements. An additional review of the GAAR’s effectiveness would not add significant value. The GAAR advisory panel provides an important safeguard by ensuring that HMRC’s decisions on GAAR cases are informed by its independent opinion.
2019 Loan Charge
Kirsty Blackman Excerpts(6 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I appreciate being called in this debate, Mr Walker, and I thank the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) for securing it.
In previous years, the SNP has raised concerns about the implementation of IR35 legislation, and during discussions on the Finance Bill I suggested a review into the way that it was being implemented. It was not necessarily that the legislation was a bad idea, but the way it was implemented did not work for people because they could not navigate the system appropriately. I raised that issue in 2016, just as my colleagues did previously.
I have been approached by many constituents about the loan charge. Some were recommended to join these schemes by the companies they worked for, which wanted them to move on and become contractors. One person told me that a presentation was given in the company’s boardroom by another company running one of the schemes. Individuals were encouraged to go to that presentation and transfer into one of the schemes rather than being employees of the company. That is a real concern.
I am concerned about the way that this measure is being implemented. I have a constituent who filled in his details before 30 September, as he was requested to do, but has not yet received a settlement figure from HMRC. Another constituent in the same boat has been told that they will receive a settlement figure by 5 April next year, although the Treasury promised that those figures would arrive by 30 November this year. People are being told that the settlement figures will not be calculated until 5 April, but they have also been told that they will need a payment plan in place by then in order to be compliant. If that settlement figure is not calculated until April and the payment plan will be required immediately, people do not have enough time to make the decisions they need to make on any settlement figure.
Clarity about timelines would be hugely appreciated. This has been a moveable feast, and the Treasury and HMRC have regularly changed the dates and times by which people have been required to submit information. It is important to have clarity so that people know when they need to have a payment plan in place.
It is important that people pay the tax they owe. At least one of my constituents is disputing the calculation made by HMRC. They have not been given a breakdown of the calculation and cannot work out why HMRC has come to that figure. There needs to be transparency so that people understand why HMRC thinks they owe what it says they owe, and they can then make rational and reasonable decisions about payment plans.
I have been clear with any constituent who has approached me, and with HMRC, that we need a mutually beneficial payment arrangement. We cannot have people being made bankrupt as a result of these payments. The change from 12 months to a five-year period for repayments is welcome, but if someone is being asked to pay back hundreds of thousands of pounds when they are existing on jobseeker’s allowance, it is not possible to pay that money back over five years.
I am also concerned about individuals who are being asked to sell or move out of their family home and have it repossessed. That causes problems for local councils as well as for the family involved, and just passes the buck. If HMRC wants to recoup the money, it would be sensible to do that in a way that means people can pay it, rather than having to be made bankrupt. We need give and take by HMRC, as well as transparency and clarity about dates.
Drew Hendry
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest problems facing people in this position is the uncertainty of not knowing how they will cope with paying these large amounts back over a period of time, when no assistance or guidance has been provided as to how they might make those payments?
Kirsty Blackman
As I said, this has been an incredibly moveble feast and HMRC keeps moving the goalposts. It is important to have clarity about the future timeline. Constituents need to understand what they will need to pay back, the timescale involved, and why they are being asked to pay back the amount requested.
John Glen
I certainly will. I took the precaution of speaking to the Financial Secretary again this morning, and I would like to clarify that, with the time-to-pay arrangements, the five-year period will automatically be put in place for those with incomes of less than £50,000. For those with larger incomes, there is an opportunity for dialogue with HMRC. With respect to individuals who have not had that settlement made known, I will be happy, as we all will as constituency MPs, to take those cases up with HMRC.
HMRC is helping thousands of scheme users to get out of avoidance for good.
John Glen
Just one moment. It will consider all personal circumstances to agree a manageable and sustainable payment plan wherever possible, and it has recently announced simplified payment terms for individuals looking to settle their tax affairs before 2019.
I want to address another issue of the debate. Those who oppose the legislation have made claims that the loan charge will bankrupt public sector workers, including teachers, nurses and social workers. It is my understanding that 1,500, or 3%, of individuals will be involved in the health and education sectors but that most of the scheme users worked in professional services. The average salary of the scheme users was £66,000, which is considerably higher than the average annual wage.
Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)
There is no time, Minister. You have 40 seconds.
Kirsty Blackman
I have contacted HMRC on behalf of constituents and have been told that it cannot talk to me about those individuals and that they will get an answer by 5 April. That is not helpful.
John Glen
I obviously cannot respond on an individual’s situation, but what I will say is that disguised remuneration schemes are complex and contrived and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe said, fail the “too good to be true” test.
Although the Financial Secretary and I have tremendous sympathy for those facing large tax bills, it is unfair to let people get away with not paying the tax they owe. There is support for people who have used the schemes and now find themselves in difficult situations, which require those affected to approach HMRC and bring the matter to a close. I will now allow my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe to make some concluding remarks.