Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Monday 18th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

The Resolution Foundation highlights that scrapping the two-child limit would be one of the most efficient ways to drive down child poverty rates, and would lift 490,000 children out of poverty overnight. Surely one child growing up in poverty is one child too many. The Secretary of State should reverse course on this, and the Labour party should also commit to scrapping the two-child limit. Does the Secretary of State agree that no child should grow up in poverty, and will he take action to ensure that that stops now?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady raises the same point as her colleague, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), about the two-child limit. I will not detain the House by repeating exactly the same answer, other than to agree passionately with her that one child in poverty is one too many, and to say that, although we have further to go, it is important to recognise that we have reduced the number of children in absolute poverty, after housing costs, by 400,000 since 2010.

National Insurance Contributions (Termination Awards and Sporting Testimonials) Bill

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

2nd reading: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 30th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to this important debate, which is narrow in scope, as the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury pointed out, but none the less important. There were a limited number of contributions, made up for, however, by their quality.

Let me bring us back to the essential element of what this Bill is all about, which is aligning the employer national insurance treatment in respect of termination awards and sporting testimonials with that of income tax. As a number of hon. Members pointed out, the rationale behind these measures is to bring in alignment and, with it, some elements of simplification. We should remind ourselves that, as we have heard, the genesis of this journey was back in 2013-14, with the report by the Office of Tax Simplification. Another rationale for these measures is to disincentivise any tendency towards the manipulation of payments as between earnings and termination payments on the tax side of things. There is, of course, additional revenue to the Exchequer of some £200 million per year as a consequence of these measures.

I turn now to some of the specific points that have been raised—first and foremost, by the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd). He told us some jokes about cricket that were not bad—well, by his standards, at least, they were passable. He managed to remember two of the three great football teams up in the Liverpool part of the country, proving conclusively, I have to say, that he knows far more about football than he does about economics and taxation. [Interruption.] Yes, cruel but fair. That was exemplified by his lamenting the fact that we did not abolish class 2 NICs. I was surprised to hear him say that, because he was at great pains, as he always is, to be the champion of the lower paid—as indeed are Conservative Members. The rationale for stepping back from that abolition, as he will know, is that it would have imposed a very significant burden on the very people he seeks to protect—the lower paid—by putting up the cost of the contributions that they would have to make in order to qualify for their state pension.

Curiously, the hon. Gentleman accused us, contrary to the assertions of the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), of having rushed the timetable for this legislation, despite the fact that its genesis was about five years ago. That is probably indicative of the speed at which a future Labour Government would get things done—five years is rushing it, in those terms. He also accused us of not taking the legislation seriously, but as he spoke there were precisely none of his hon. or right hon. Friends sitting on the Benches behind him.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) gave a masterful performance in which he not only showed great in-depth knowledge of the issues at hand but understood the mentality and the challenges that we have as Ministers in the Treasury. It is indeed a restrictive environment where we do not want to put people’s taxes up, we make commitments not to do so, and we fight day in, day out to ensure that we stick to those pledges. But at the same time, we do of course have to raise revenue, as he described. He also cantered around the tax terrain, touching on IR35, auto-enrolment and various other aspects of tax. It was a very thoughtful contribution to the debate.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) specifically referenced the amount of consultation—or the lack of it, as she saw it—around the Bill. I should remind her that we have consulted on it twice. It was issued in draft in December 2016, and it was prefigured when we handled the income tax aspects of these issues in the 2016 and 2017 Finance Acts. Of course, the measures themselves were first mooted back in 2015, so we have been round the block with them.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The point I was making was not that there was necessarily a lack of consultation, but that we did not know how much consultation there had been, because the details are not in the explanatory notes, where they would often be. Normally, the explanatory notes will say a bit about the amount of consultation there has been, but they do not say anything at all. If that had been written down for us, and we had known how many consultation responses there had been, I would not have asked the question.

[Mel Stride]

The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury has just reminded me that there has been a lot of information out there—we have, not least, written to Members to explain the background to these measures.

As to the hon. Lady’s specific point, she has raised the quality of information memorandums with me before in a different context. I said on that occasion, and I will restate now, that I am happy to look at the point she has raised. While we may have disagreements over policy across the House, I think we all accept that it is important that the relevant information is clearly provided and in the right place, and I will certainly be happy to look at that issue.

The hon. Lady raised the issue of tax treatment where there is an expectation that a testimonial payment will be made. She understandably asked how we know whether such a payment should be seen as having an expectation attached to it. The answer is if that payment is customary. If someone is involved in a sports club of some sort, and there is a testimonial every year for a particular player or group of players, and that had been going on for some time, that would be a customary testimonial situation. In those circumstances, the tax treatment would follow accordingly.

The hon. Lady also raised a point about employer NICS at 13.8% being applied above the £30,000 threshold. She raised the prospect that some of that may be borne by the employee, because the employer would have a certain amount that they were looking at. She raised the question of what the balance was between who bears that cost and the £200 million per year received by the Exchequer. I very much doubt that that information is available, but if it is, I will certainly make sure that we provide it to her. That may be an issue she wishes to come back to in Committee.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) specifically majored on the threshold—the £30,000—and pointed out that it first came into effect in 1988. What I would say to him is that, in the case of Germany and the United States—certainly in the case of income tax—the threshold is effectively zero, so in terms of international comparisons, the figure of £30,000, while it is true that it has not increased by inflation since 1988, is none the less set at a reasonable and proportionate level. As a number of speakers have also pointed out, 80% of termination payments are below the £30,000 threshold in any event and would therefore not fall under this employers’ national insurance.

The hon. Member for Oxford East, as well as helpfully pointing out that Labour’s mission is to increase corporation tax, came on to the issue of avoidance and evasion, particularly in the area of football. She thought I would mention the Rangers case, and it is important to do that, because it does indicate that we will take cases right the way to the Supreme Court when we believe that issues such as disguised remuneration are in play. Whether it is in football or other areas of commerce and economic life, we will make sure that the right amount of tax is paid. I will not rehearse the arguments that the hon. Lady has heard from me on many occasions about the tax gap and how successful the Government have been in that respect compared with Governments of the past.

The second issue the hon. Lady raised was charitable giving. She set up the prospect of a testimonial being held and the money going through the committee and then on to a charity. She asked what the tax treatment would be in those circumstances. It is open to a committee in that situation to route some of the money via payroll giving to the charity—that is without limit—to make sure that that is done in the most tax-efficient manner possible. However, she may wish to return to that matter in Committee, where we can perhaps have a more detailed debate about it.

The hon. Lady asked about seeking evidence of the abuse of termination payments—in other words, disguising what are essentially earnings by transferring them into a termination payment, thereby reducing taxation. HMRC is clear that there has been evidence of that in the past. I am sure that she will wish to revisit the matter in more detail in Committee.

The hon. Lady mentioned the impact of these measures on wages, citing the correct figure of 0.1% for the reduction by 2020-21. However, I point out that we have now had 10 months of increased real wages, due to our success in keeping inflation down and generating nominal wage growth. Of course, with regard to employment, which is part of the issue we are addressing, we now have among the highest levels of employment in our history, and the lowest unemployment since the mid-1970s.

The hon. Lady asked what guarantees there are that we will not reduce the threshold in either case. Of course, it is up to this Government, or any future Government, to take a view on these matters, but I can assure her that we have no expectation or intention at the present time to lower the thresholds. If we did, that would of course be by way of an affirmative statutory instrument, which means the measure would have appropriate scrutiny.

In conclusion, I thank the Opposition and all Members for their contributions, and for not opposing Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

National Insurance Contributions (Termination Awards and Sporting Testimonials) Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the National Insurance Contributions (Termination Awards and Sporting Testimonials) Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 16 May 2019.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on Consideration.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (programming sub-committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Mel Stride.)

Question agreed to.

National Insurance Contributions (Termination Awards and Sporting Testimonials) Bill (Ways and Means)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purpose of any Act resulting from the National Insurance Contributions (Termination Awards and Sporting Testimonials) Bill, it is expedient to authorise provision adding termination awards chargeable to income tax to the amount by reference to which, in the case of Class 1A National Insurance Contributions, the appropriate national health service allocation (for England, Wales and Scotland) and the appropriate health service allocation (for Northern Ireland) are to be calculated.—(Mel Stride.)

Question agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

We have already brought in some important measures to do just that, not least by increasing the annual investment allowance from £200,000 to £1 million, as announced at the previous Budget. We keep all taxes under review and I will certainly bear my hon. Friend’s important point in mind.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

In a recent survey by the Fraser of Allander Institute, 62% of Scottish businesses said that they did not feel ready for Brexit. Will the Chancellor bring forward an emergency Budget to provide support for small and medium-sized enterprises so that they can cope with the Brexit that he proposes?

[Mel Stride]

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, we will take stock of the situation and take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that we protect and support businesses throughout the United Kingdom.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I was specifically talking about the Brexit that the Chancellor is proposing, which is presumably not a no-deal Brexit, although it looks like 100,000 jobs could be lost in Scotland as a direct result of no deal. However, in relation to the deal Brexit, the Bank of England has said that unemployment could be up to 4% higher by 2023 if the Prime Minister’s deal is approved. Does the Chancellor believe that keeping his job is worth costing thousands of others?

[Mel Stride]

I do not believe that the figure to which the hon. Lady refers is accurate. This Government have seen employment at a record high and unemployment at the lowest level since 1975, and youth employment is half what it was in 2010—unlike the Labour Government, who saw youth unemployment increase by almost 50%.

Leaving the EU: Economic Impact of Proposed Deal

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

The analysis, as demanded by the House, sets out the different possible outcomes, including modelling a range of options between those contained in the White Paper of June last year and an FTA, as well as a point somewhere between the two of them, to allow an informed look at the likely impact of the various outcomes implicit in the future declaration. The hon. Gentleman will know that that is, of necessity, the way in which this analysis has to be conducted, given that we have a period during which we will be negotiating a precise exit arrangement with the European Union.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

This is Schrödinger’s analysis—even the Minister does not know whether or not it exists at this moment in time. Will he answer a simple question: does he believe that the UK would be better off if it were to leave the EU with the Prime Minister’s deal or if it were to stay in the EU?

[Mel Stride]

I have been asked this question a couple of times, and the reality is that it is entirely hypothetical. To end up staying within the European Union would be to fly in the face of the result of the June 2016 referendum —the referendum had a higher turnout than any other electoral event in our country’s history—and this Government are going to respect the outcome of that referendum.

Making Tax Digital

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

There is a lot going on in HMRC just now: MTD, the incredible number of additional staff being put in to deal with Brexit, and the downsizing and changing of HMRC offices. It is interesting that the Minister says he is not in favour of centralisation in the provision of software but is in favour of centralisation in relation to closing all the offices so that there are only super-offices, not local ones.

HMRC has not yet provided even the most basic information that taxpayers will require in order to take part in MTD. Some have received a letter—an overly complicated and fairly cursory letter—telling them of the start date, but they have not received information on their specific queries about how to sign up to MTD and how it will work for them. It would be useful for the Minister to provide more information around what HMRC is doing on that.

The Minister said 81% of the businesses that are expected to sign up by April are aware of MTD. It is a damning indictment that only 81% are aware of it; HMRC and the Government should be doing a better job of making sure these businesses are aware of it, because 19% are not aware, and in fact a significant number of businesses are hearing about this potentially for the first time today.

Because there is no one approved software provider recommended by HMRC, I am concerned that 160 choices is a baffling array that businesses will have to decide between with no idea which of these software choices will work, which will work well and which will suit their business. It is not helpful to have that many software choices.

On penalties on businesses, I understand that when businesses sign up to MTD, their previous records are transferred from the old system to the new one and are lost from the old system. Can the Minister confirm that businesses that hold out until later than April but before their filing date will not be penalised for holding out in order for them to make sure the system is working properly and to make appropriate software choices before they make that switch, and potentially lose all their old records?

On Brexit staff and the changes HMRC has been making to focus on Brexit, can the Minister confirm how much resource has been put into MTD and communicating this to taxpayers compared with how much resource has been put into preparing for Brexit? If significantly more has been put into Brexit, is now really the right time to be trying to make changes around MTD when there is potentially not enough HMRC resource to go around, never mind enough resource within businesses to try to deal with both these things coming down the line at once?

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Lady for her various questions and will deal with them in turn. She referred to the matter of awareness and the 81% figure. We would expect that figure to rise through time quite strongly, not least because of our communications programme. We will be writing by the end of this month to the 1.2 million businesses and individuals in scope of this measure. We of course have our VAT helpline for where there are queries, and there is a huge amount of information available on gov.uk.

The hon. Lady made a pertinent and perfectly reasonable point about how businesses and individuals will navigate their way around the various software suppliers and the 160 different products. First, all that information is available on gov.uk, and, secondly, we will shortly be releasing further information that will allow businesses to put in their requirements and then reduce that number of products to a subset that is particularly relevant to their needs.

The hon. Lady asked about the resources put into MTD compared with those put into our Brexit preparations. That of course probably begs several other questions as to what aspects of our preparation for Brexit she wishes to make for that particular comparison, and I would be very happy to discuss that with her in further detail after this statement.

HMRC Estate Transformation

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As he will be aware, we have announced that we will retain the Southend office until the end of 2022, but I am happy to meet him to discuss that matter.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I thank the Financial Secretary for giving this statement and for advance sight of it. It is clear that he has drawn the short straw today—perhaps it is penance for his “no food, no channel tunnel” gaffe. Somebody needed to give a statement so that we had less time for the Brexit debate, and at least 10 fewer Members will get to speak in it as a result of this statement.

This is an important statement, but the timing is bizarre, given that on 8 January HMRC produced on its website a list of addresses and details of the transitional sites. How come it has taken 21 days for the Financial Secretary to come to Parliament to allow us to ask questions on this statement? How come it happens to be on the day when we are discussing Brexit?

As the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) said, the entire programme of transformation and the way that this has been gone about is completely bonkers. Dedicated, experienced staff are being forced out of HMRC as a result of these closures. Communities such as Cumbernauld and Livingston are losing thousands of jobs as a result of these changes. Why on earth does the Financial Secretary think it is good value to close a large out-of-town office and move it to a city centre location where rents are hugely in excess of those in out-of-town locations, where staff will have massively increased travel costs to get to work and where business rates are likely to be far higher? Why does he think that this is a good idea?

The Financial Secretary said that 90% of staff who were at HMRC at the beginning of this process will still be there at the end. What about the 10% of staff who will not be there at the end? Will those staff be made redundant? How many of those 10% of staff are in Scotland?

People worked in HMRC offices in Inverness, Wick and Aberdeen, but the only regional offices in Scotland will be in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Does the Financial Secretary realise how long it takes to get from Aberdeen to Edinburgh, from Inverness to Glasgow or from Wick to Glasgow? It takes the best part of a day to get there from Wick. There is no way that people can commute that distance.

In terms of the customs checking functions that HMRC will need to perform, does the Financial Secretary believe that there will be adequate geographical coverage of customs staff once Brexit happens? More checks by customs officers will be required at those ports, and if it takes them a day to get to the port, there will be even more of a hold-up than is being suggested in a no-deal scenario.

I understand that HMRC is taking on an extra 5,300 staff to deal with Brexit planning. Could the Financial Secretary confirm how many of those 5,300 staff who are being taken on or have been taken on are in Scotland? How many of the 3,000 additional customer service staff who have been taken on are in Scotland? How many jobs will HMRC have in Scotland at the end of this process compared with the beginning? Lastly, I want to know why the Financial Secretary has taken 21 days to come to the House to tell us what was published on HMRC’s website on 8 January.

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady raised a number of questions, one of which was about the issue of staff.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman]

We have not had taxation powers for 10 years, and we do not have the full range of powers. For example, we do not have the full range of powers over public health, so we do not have in Scotland powers such as the public health taxation measures—the sugar tax—that were brought forward in the previous Budget. We do not have the full range of powers, and if Scotland were to be an independent country, with the full range of powers, we would be putting the things we are discussing today at the heart of our Government’s agenda. Our Government have done this and we will continue to do this—we are pushing for fairness.

I will wrap up, because I am aware that I am relatively short of time, but I want to talk about the people who are the poorest and, by the way, the most disadvantaged by the way in which this society is set up. Following the changes to universal credit, those in the bottom 30% of incomes will gain less from the work allowance than they will lose in the benefit freeze. The benefit freeze is costing them more than the changes to the work allowance will give them. Those people, who have no recourse to public funds, are the poorest individuals I see coming through my door, and this Government have caused that situation. This Government have caused a situation in which asylum seekers have got absolutely nothing. This is about the very poorest people, who have got the worst life chances as a result, and this Government are completely failing to do anything to support them or to improve their life chances. This is about people on disability benefits, who are really struggling, and at every turn, this Government have made their lives worse, rather than better. This is about lone parents, who are disadvantaged as a result of universal credit. This is about the increases in food bank usage.

The Government talk about people working their way out of poverty. I do not understand how people can have hope when they do not have enough to eat.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)]

I thank everybody who has made a contribution in this very important debate. There have been some extremely passionate and well-argued speeches.

Part of the debate has been exemplified by the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who spoke in effect about who cares about these issues. We need to recognise that Members on both sides of this House—I include the Opposition in my remarks—care very deeply about whether our fellow citizens in our great nation are impoverished, are in dire straits, do not have enough to make ends meet, do not have enough to feed their children, or have children who do not have the opportunities in life that we wish for our children in turn. Those things matter considerably, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on the quality of the speech he delivered, particularly in that respect.

Something else that lay at the heart of the debate between the hon. Member for Gedling and my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, is whether the numbers matter. Do the figures matter? I think it was the contention of the hon. Member for Gedling that, in a sense, the figures do not matter. In a curious way, that is rather at odds with the notion of supporting new clause 1, because it calls for more figures to inform our decisions. In one sense, of course, the figures do not matter, because what matters is the condition of the people who live in our country. However, figures do matter when it comes to formulating the policy responses we need to address the situation, and if we are, in any meaningful way, to chart the progress, or otherwise, that Governments—ours and the Labour Governments who preceded us—have made on this extremely important issue.

Finance (No. 3) Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Committee Debate: 9th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mel Stride]

I was making a slightly different point. It was not so much about what the response may or may not have been—I do not know the answer to that, regarding the measure that is under consideration by the Committee—but rather about our push to make sure that just those companies pay the appropriate level of taxation in the United Kingdom. Frankly, I think the businesses themselves want to be seen to be paying a fair level of tax. That is the impression that I get from the Treasury perspective. We are not on the back foot on this; we are very much on the front foot, pushing within both the OECD and the European Union to make sure that we can come up with a multilateral solution, which has particular advantages over going it alone. However, we have made it clear, as the Chancellor set out in the recent Budget, that in the event that there is not a multilateral solution, we will of course act unilaterally by 2020.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Before the Minister goes on to his next point, can I bring him back to the issue of retrospectivity? I am concerned that the Government’s definition of retrospectivity seems to be different from that of the CIT and the LITRG. Will the Minister write to me with his definition of retrospectivity in advance of Report, so that we can see whether we should press the amendment at that time?

[Mel Stride]

Yes, of course. I would be very happy to do that and in some detail. As I have already suggested, the general point is that those businesses that would not be in scope of these new arrangements, at the moment that they come into effect, would remain out of scope of these arrangements. That is the important point, I think, but I will certainly write to provide further detail.

My final point is about whether we are going soft on larger businesses, which I think was the overarching implication of the hon. Member for Oxford East. She should bear it in mind that at any one time, about half the 210 largest businesses in the United Kingdom are under active investigation. That does not mean that they are doing anything wrong—it may be far from it—but I sincerely believe that HMRC are very good at making sure that those businesses are thoroughly engaged with, particularly the large ones, because that is where a lot of yield lies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

This is probably a discussion for another day, in the sense that the hon. Lady is asking that, in the event that we revisit the issue of the time limits for onshore investigation, we should on that basis consider her amendment anew, because it might dispense with the different treatment between onshore and offshore. We might come to that in another world on another occasion, in another Finance Bill.

I am anxious to make progress—the hon. Member for Bootle sits there looking like he has got all day, but we have to make progress. Amendments 141, 142 and 143 on clause 79, and amendments 144 and 145 on clause 80, would require the Government to review the impact and effectiveness of the clauses within six months of the passing of the Act. Such reviews, however, would not have the intended effect: no data in relation to the characteristics of persons affected, the revenue effects of the changes, or the effects of the changes on incentives on persons to comply, will be available after six months. That is because it is unlikely that a full assessment of any relevant cases will be conducted within the six months after Royal Assent. Thus a report would likely be impossible or meaningless.

On that basis, I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Kirsty Blackman]

If the Minister writes to me with the comments about retrospectivity, it may be that we will not press our proposal to a Division on Report, but I will not press it now in anticipation of receiving that letter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

Very briefly, if the Labour party chooses to press these amendments to a vote, we will support it, because we think that what it is trying to achieve is very sensible.

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Member for Oxford East for her questions, most of which I will come to in my general statement on the clause. It is good to hear that she broadly welcomes the general thrust of what we are doing. I think she said that amendments 146 and 147 are probing amendments, and raised various issues about the guidance. Of course, those who are to be affected by the measures will have a right of appeal—they will be able to go to a tribunal to dispute the imposition of advance payments. During the period of dispute, the payment is not required to be made. That is an important point. They will also be invited to comment with HMRC—and have a right to do so—on the proposed level of payment being sought during the process by which it is determined. If their circumstances change at any point in the process or thereafter, that is an opportunity for further discussion and potentially change in the amounts that might be involved. I will pick up one or two other points on guidance in my general remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

An interesting observation: as soon as “EU” appears in a clause, we suddenly have more interest from the Committee than for other measures. Ms Dorries, I will endeavour not to stray into too much detail around the pros and cons of the current deal and the White Paper and all that kind of stuff, and will stick to the clause.

The clause enables the Government to make changes to bring into force the regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the EU directive on tax dispute resolution mechanisms within the European Union. Double taxation arises when the same profits are taxed twice by two different tax authorities. It can create serious obstacles for businesses operating across borders by creating excessive tax burdens, leading to inefficiencies and an economic disincentive to trade. An effective tax dispute resolution system can help to alleviate double taxation.

The UK is a signatory to the convention on the elimination of double taxation in connection with the adjustment of profits of associated enterprises within member states of the European Union, known as the arbitration convention. The UK has also entered into bilateral tax treaties with every EU member state for the purpose of eliminating double taxation. Following a review, it was concluded that the mechanisms currently provided for in bilateral tax treaties and the arbitration convention might not achieve the effective resolution of double taxation disputes between member states in all cases in a timely manner. Consequently, the directive was adopted to build on existing systems. The UK supported the aims of the directive and agreed the adopted text in 2017.

The powers contained within the clause are necessary to enable the Government to introduce secondary legislation to implement the directive. Some proposed amendments would apply the draft affirmative procedure to all regulations made under the clause. As it stands, the Bill ensures that the scrutiny procedures applying to the exercise of each power are appropriate and proportionate. The primary purpose of these powers is to give effect to an EU directive that has already been published. The exercise of the powers will therefore be a largely technical exercise—a point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms), who also raised the important point that Committee members who wish to further debate a negative SI can of course can pray against it—to transpose the agreed text into UK law. It would not be appropriate to apply the affirmative procedure to all the regulations.

An amendment has also been tabled that asks for a review of the effect on the exercise of the power contained in the clause of the UK leaving the EU with or without a negotiated withdrawal agreement within two months of the Finance Act 2019 being passed. The Government’s intention is for a negotiated withdrawal agreement to apply to the UK, and therefore an implementation period, so that we can use the powers in the clause to implement the EU directive. As a responsible Government, we are also planning for the unlikely event of leaving the EU without a deal. Given the reciprocal nature of double tax dispute resolution, it is difficult to see how legislation implementing the directive can work in a no-deal scenario, but we do not think it would be beneficial to commit to producing a report so close to EU exit, and before the transposition deadline of the directive in June 2019.

A further amendment asks for a statement by the Chancellor on the revenue effects of the exercise of the power under the clause. The Government intend to publish a tax information and impact note for the draft regulations. That will include an assessment of the expected revenue effects of the regulations. I am pleased to say that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Poole thoroughly approves of the tax information and impact notes regime which, as he knows, is rigorous and helpful. As a result there will be no need for the Chancellor to make an additional statement to the House.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I do not have much to add other than that I still want to press amendment 137 to a vote.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Tuesday 11th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Scottish National party would like the country to stay in the EU, which would, for example, severely disadvantage the Scottish fishing industry. We have negotiated a very advantageous situation in terms of having control of our fishing as an independent coastal state. The point my hon. Friend makes is also entirely right: if Scotland were to be independent there would be frictions at the border between ourselves and Scotland, which would not assist with trade.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

On 19 November, the Exchequer Secretary told us that the Government’s analysis would contain a comparison between the Prime Minister’s deal and the status quo, and that it would contain insight from external stakeholders. It contains neither of those things. The Treasury Committee this morning produced a report that expresses disappointment that the Prime Minister’s deal has not been analysed. Yesterday, businesses lost 2% of their value. UK firms have no sympathy for a UK Government who are feart to put their shoddy deal before the House. Will the Chancellor stand by the words he said previously that

“remaining in the European Union would be a better outcome for the economy”?

Will he find some backbone and make that case in Parliament?

[Mel Stride]

The cross-government departmental analysis shows clearly that the outcome of no deal would see the United Kingdom disadvantaged by 8% of GDP compared with the deal negotiated at the moment in the withdrawal agreement. The best option identified in the analysis is the current deal.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The analysis does not model the deal. That is what the Treasury Committee says and that is what we are saying. It models Chequers; it does not model the Prime Minister’s deal. The Minister cannot stand there and make that case to the House.

Because the Prime Minister pulled the vote this week, businesses are accelerating their contingency no-deal Brexit plans. They are heightening their preparations for an emergency no deal. The legacy of this Government will be lost investment, lost growth and lost jobs. Surely the Chancellor cannot think it is acceptable that, just to save the Prime Minister’s job, hundreds of other people have to lose theirs?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady suggests that the analysis does not model the White Paper deal. It does exactly that, but it does it in terms of the future relationship and the political declaration which, as she will know, is a range of potential outcomes—so that is entirely what the analysis does. As I say, what it shows is that the deal we have negotiated with the European Union is the best deal available for the things that she and I hold dear: growth across our economy, growth in Scotland, jobs in Scotland and even lower unemployment in Scotland. The Scottish National party should now row in behind this deal to make sure that we do the best for the whole of the United Kingdom.

Finance (No. 3) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[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.

Finance (No. 3) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[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.

Finance (No. 3) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Thursday 29th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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)

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Thursday 29th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Wednesday 28th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[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 (First sitting)

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Tuesday 27th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Finance (No. 3) Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 27th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Tuesday 6th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

We take a very balanced approach to the economy, which of course includes ensuring that we stick rigorously to our fiscal rules. We have met the two intermediate rules a full three years early. We continue to bear down on the deficit, and debt as a percentage of GDP will continue to fall throughout every year of this Parliament.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Each additional EU citizen working in Scotland contributes £10,400 to Government revenue. What assessment has the Minister made of the reduction in tax revenue as a result of the ending of free movement?

[Mel Stride]

I am sorry to keep reverting to the same answer, but it is effectively the same question that I keep being asked: “What will the analysis look like when the deal is concluded?” Of course that prompts the question of what exactly the deal will be. In the fullness of time, when the deal is agreed, we will come back to the House with a full analysis.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs can collect customs duties only if it has a working customs system, so how is the roll-out of the customs declaration service going? How is HMRC going to achieve the Government’s commitment in the Red Book to halve the time it takes to apply for customs trusted trader status?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady raises the issue of the CDS system. The current expectation is that that will be fully functioning by the end of March next year, which means we therefore have a robust back-up in the extension of the CHIEF—Customs Handling of Import and Export Freight—system. This is to make sure that that gears up for the huge increase in the number of customs declarations that will need to be made in a no-deal situation. We will of course continue to work hard on that matter.

Leaving the EU: Customs Arrangements

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)]

I will certainly leave two minutes for my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond).

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Streeter. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds). I believe we might be facing each other next week on another occasion. There seems to be a sense that something is happening on Monday or Tuesday next week. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon on securing the debate.

As many have suggested, it might be worth me injecting as much clarity as I can on the Government’s position. While Members made extremely valid and well-put points about the downsides of an arrangement in which we perhaps have no deal and there is a hard border between us and the EU27, I am not so sure that the merits of the proposition that the Cabinet agreed at Chequers have come through.

As we all know, the main problem with a hard border or even with the maximum facilitation arrangements is that we would have a border between ourselves and the EU27. We would have various degrees of friction that we would seek to reduce under the max fac model through various facilitations and the use of technology, but we know there would be costs associated with that kind of arrangement. That is why at the Chequers meeting we wisely moved towards something that works much better in that respect. In terms of the cost of the kinds of frictions we might have with some of the scenarios that have been conjured up this afternoon, the head of HMRC tallied the cost of the additional customs declarations that would have to be entered into as a consequence of a border between ourselves and the EU27 at about £20 billion a year. Those are not insignificant costs to business, which the Government most certainly recognise.

The model we are now looking at is a facilitated customs arrangement, where we will act effectively as the agent for the European Union at our borders when it comes to goods coming through the UK into the EU. We will be collecting the European Union’s tariff at that point. For goods going directly into the United Kingdom for consumption or end use in our jurisdiction, we would apply the UK tariff at that point.

We would also have a common rulebook, which means that for regulation pertaining to goods and agricultural products, we would not, at least initially, have any regulatory misalignment between ourselves and the EU27. The significance of that is that we will therefore not require border and customs arrangements between ourselves and the EU27, and indeed between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.

[Kirsty Blackman]

On goods that are coming in from a third country, how will the Government work out on which bits of a shipment to charge the UK tariff, and on which bits to charge the EU tariff?

[Mel Stride]

I point the hon. Lady to her question about the White Paper. There will be more detail to come on just those kinds of questions, and of course much of this will remain to be negotiated. Our estimate is that the vast majority—well in excess of 90%—of goods coming in could be charged directly at the border as an EU good, or would be non-tariff anyway under both EU and UK arrangements, or face the UK tariff accordingly. A very small proportion might fall into the category to which she refers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The commitments of support that we have already made up until 2022—the end of this Parliament—are entirely indicative of the importance of the agricultural sector to our economy.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Given that over 18% of Scotland’s international exports are food and drink related—our top export—this is an important question for people in Scotland. The EU’s average applied most-favoured-nation tariff for agricultural products is 11.1%, but it is different for individual products: 170% on oils, 157% on fruit and veg, and 152% on beverages and tobacco. How many agricultural jobs does the Treasury believe will be lost as a result of crashing out of the customs union without a trade deal?

[Mel Stride]

An objective of our negotiation is to ensure that we lower tariff barriers between ourselves and the EU27, as they will be known. The hon. Lady did not mention the tariff on whisky, which is currently 0%, and if we had an independent Scotland, she would be asking the same question in the context of the new border between ourselves and Scotland.

[Kirsty Blackman]

People in Scotland are used to the UK Government making empty assurances, but the reality is that farmers cannot make plans on the strength of such assurances. Scottish farmers should have received over 80% of the convergence uplift moneys that the UK was given by the EU, but the UK Government have slashed that, passing only 16% on to Scottish farmers. Given the UK Government’s track record, how can farmers trust them to deliver?

Customs and Borders

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Thursday 26th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

The position of the Prime Minister and the Government is that we are confident of a deal. In that context, this issue of no deal is not particularly pertinent.

Other important points have been raised. I think everybody recognises the importance of having as frictionless a border as possible. Of course, it is recognised that we would achieve that if we stayed within the customs union or a customs union, which is de facto the same thing, but that is not the same as suggesting that there are not alternative arrangements—I will discuss those alternative arrangements in a moment—that would achieve as good as the same thing as a frictionless border.

Many Members today have raised the importance of being free as a nation to go out and negotiate our own free trade arrangements, which of course means that we need to leave the customs union.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Does the Financial Secretary believe the trade agreements we negotiate could possibly be better than the trade agreements we currently have and would continue to have as a member of the EU?

[Mel Stride]

As the hon. Lady knows, we are currently working on transferring the EU’s agreements with third-world countries. Of course, in future we will be free to strike our own FTAs with other countries, which we are currently prohibited from doing.

It is good to hear the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) agree with Margaret Thatcher at long last. She stood for free markets, free trade and fiscal responsibility, and I look forward to hearing more of that from him in the years to come.

I have just been informed that I must leave two minutes for the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, which I will endeavour to do—[Interruption]— although she is generously saying that one minute will be enough.

The hon. Member for Bootle suggested that the Government’s position is confused, although I am not sure whether he was thinking of his own position when he said that. The reality is that the Labour party has a classic fudge on the customs union. It wants to tell everybody that we can somehow be in the customs union while not being a rule taker—that we can somehow negotiate to be in the room when FTAs between the EU and other countries are negotiated. The Labour party accuses us of seeking to cherry-pick, but by its own logic, it is quite clear that this is just not a realistic possibility.

The hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned clause 31 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, which will indeed permit the UK to enter into a customs union with another customs union or territory. That is something we will almost certainly wish to do with our Crown dependencies. The clause will therefore not be relevant to the European Union after our departure. The Government are therefore clear that when we leave the European Union we will leave its customs union. That is a matter of fact. The Government have also been clear that forming a new customs union with the EU is not compatible with a meaningful independent trade policy, so we will not be doing that. Outside the EU and a customs union, the UK will be able to sign its own trade deals with our partners around the world.

Draft Scottish Rates of Income Tax (Consequential Amendments) Order 2018

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Monday 26th March 2018 General Committees

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I appreciate that the UK Government are introducing enabling legislation to ensure that the Scottish rate of income tax can apply and that Scotland will therefore be the fairest tax part of the United Kingdom.

[Mel Stride]

I hope that the Committee will agree to the order.

Question put and agreed to.

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Thursday 1st February 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mrs Main.

The amendment would add the interests of manufacturers to the list of factors the Secretary of State and the Treasury respectively must have regard to when recommending or imposing a rate of export duty. The Government acknowledge the wide-ranging impact that any future imposition of export duty could have on the UK economy and that of our trading partners. We would consider imposing an export duty only in wholly exceptional circumstances. Of course, in practice the Secretary of State and the Treasury would have regard to many factors. The provision requiring the Secretary of State and the Treasury to have regard to productivity, trade, consumer interests and competition is sufficient and broad enough to encapsulate the economic and strategic interests of the whole of the United Kingdom.

Taking into account the interests of manufacturers will often form part of the Secretary of State and Treasury’s duty to consider how export duty will maintain and promote productivity in the UK, but it would be inappropriate to specify an exhaustive list of factors in the Bill. The Government believe that the scrutiny and procedure set out in the Bill are proportionate and enable us to respond quickly to exceptional circumstances to implement an export duty.

Amendment 79 would add the impacts on sustainable development to the list of factors the Secretary of State and Treasury must have regard to when respectively recommending a rate of export duty or considering whether to impose export duty, and the rate of duty applicable. Where relevant and possible, the Government will take into account the impact of export duty on sustainable development. However, it would be inappropriate to specify an exhaustive list in the Bill. Certain factors will be relevant in certain cases, and their importance may change over time.

Amendment 119 would add the public interest to the list of factors the Secretary of State and the Treasury must have regard to when respectively recommending a rate of export duty or considering whether to impose export duty, and the rate that should apply. The provision requiring the Treasury and the Secretary of State to have regard to productivity, trade, consumer interests and competition is sufficient to encapsulate the public interest by considering the economic and strategic interests of the whole of the UK.

Amendments 142 to 145 provide additional factors that the Treasury and Secretary of State must have regard to respectively when considering whether to impose export duty and the rate that should be applied. Clause 39(4) is broad enough to cover the economic and strategic interests of the UK. In particular, I question the necessity of considering food standards, environmental protection and the welfare of animals when setting a tax on goods leaving the United Kingdom. The amendments would not achieve the presumed aim of preserving standards in the UK. Lastly, the interests of producers are intrinsically linked with competition, productivity and the promotion of trade, which are already included in the Bill. I therefore urge hon. Members not to press the amendments.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Thank you for chairing the Committee this afternoon, Mrs Main. I appreciate having the opportunity to speak, and want to speak in favour of all seven amendments in this group.

Amendment 13 is about the Government giving consideration to the interests of manufacturers, which we spoke about at length in relation to import duty. I have previously made the case about the disproportionate or differentiated geographical implications of some of the changes the Government are making and some of the rules that they will have. That is particularly important in relation to manufacturing interests, given that those are mainly in the north of England and in Scotland, rather than further south. I therefore feel that it is relevant to take this consideration into account.

We have received written evidence from organisations about sustainable development. They say that it is important for the Government to consider sustainable development when making decisions about import or export duty—we are obviously talking about export duty in this case—and the Government should do that.

Amendment 119, which appears in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, relates to the public interest. I am not sure that I agree with the Minister when he says that consumer interest and the interests of promoting external trade, productivity and competition adequately cover the entirety of public interest. I think that consumer interest is different from public interest in this regard, and a number of our constituents would agree if they came to discuss this issue with us.

Amendment 142 relates to producers. Again, there is a geographical bias towards the north and the more rural parts of the four nations of the United Kingdom. Producers are generally in places that are a bit further away from London, and they have a significant positive benefit on the areas that they are in. People tend to be employed in agricultural produce, for example, in areas where there are few other types of employment, so having regard to the interests of producers is important.

I take the Minister’s point that the clause is about export duty rather than import duty, where food safety regulation may be more relevant. However, it is still relevant that the Government ensure that food safety is high up the agenda, given our conversations about trade deals, chlorinated chicken and the possible erosion of food safety now that the United Kingdom is planning to leave the EU and the food standards that come with it.

Amendment 144 is about environmental protection. Again, it would be a good statement of direction if the Government explicitly included environmental protection in anything that they do, given that America is not looking at implementing the Paris agreement. It is making negative changes that will impact on the future of the world for us, our children and our children’s children. I would not want to see the United Kingdom go down a similar route in the erosion of environmental protection standards, so it is really important that this proposal is included.

Amendment 145 relates to the welfare of animals as sentient beings. Given that we have had discussions in the House about the sentience or otherwise of animals, and it seems that a number of Members across the House are less keen to stress that animals are sentient beings, it is important that we have this written into the Bill.

Although the Minister’s comments were a bit helpful, they could have been more so. It would have been more helpful for the Minister to say, if he were so minded, that those factors will be considered when making the decision. In fact, we have a list of four factors that will be considered, and there is no opportunity for that to be wider. If the Bill said “any other relevant factor”, for example, that would encapsulate them all and the Minister could stand up and say, “We will of course consider the public interest and the interests of food safety and of environmental protections when we are making these decisions.” We would have a level of reassurance that those things will be taken into account.

All the amendments are important. I accept that they are specific to export duty, which is relatively unusual and pretty niche, but to have those things explicitly stated by the Minister in Committee or in the Bill would be incredibly useful, rather than the short list of four factors that does not allow for a wider consideration of the issues.

[Mel Stride]

I will respond because, as ever, the hon. Lady made some helpful comments.

On taking into account sustainable development and the interests of producers, I refer the hon. Lady to the point that she made herself, which is that the clause does not prohibit any of those matters being taken into account. The point I made earlier was that the Government certainly do not see the need to specifically reference those matters—or, indeed, the many other matters that the Committee and individual parliamentarians may feel are important in this context—in order that we do not have an exhaustive list, but rely on the common sense and good public policy making of the people who make such decisions.

Duties, whether they are import duties or export duties, which are potential though unlikely, are a slightly strange instrument to use in the food safety context. It would be much more appropriate for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to look at those issues and use its powers to take action where clear breaches of food safety have occurred or are likely to occur.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I want to follow up on the point about the WTO schedule. I appreciate that the Minister wrote to the Committee about it, but he did not answer the question that was asked, which was: where do the Government have the power to lodge schedules with the WTO? The question was not: where do the Government have the power to implement such schedules? That is the question that he answered; I appreciate that he answered it fully, but it was the wrong question.

As far as I am aware, the UK Government have not legislated to give themselves the power to lodge schedules with the WTO in this Bill, the Trade Bill or the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. It is not about the implementation of them; it is about the lodging of them. As my colleague on the Labour Front Bench, the hon. Member for Oxford East, mentioned, there are concerns about the impact on sustainable development and such matters. It would be useful if the Minister were to follow up his letter with a further one that answers that question.

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Members for Aberdeen North and for Oxford East for their contributions. On the issue of sustainable development, I can provide the Committee with reassurance that the Government take that area of policy extremely seriously. As the Committee will know, the UK Government have stated their commitments to the UN sustainable development goals that were agreed in September 2015. A publication released on 14 December 2017 outlined the Government’s response to the UN SDGs and their relevance to individual departmental plans. Trade policy is explicitly referenced in five of those 17 goals.

The hon. Member for Oxford East asked me about the letter regarding WTO scheduling, upon which I believe she may still be waiting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am feeling slightly sorry for you, Mrs Main—having to chair a Committee that erupts into riotous laughter, which is most unusual for a customs Bill Committee. I appreciated the Minister’s speech, but I think he is losing his oomph somewhat—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”]—although I am sure he will find it again.

We are reaching the end of our discussions. I am sure all members of the Committee are quite glad about that, because I am not sure how much more we can discuss sunset clauses. However, I have a few more points to raise about our amendments. Amendment 120 would replace the second “appropriate” in clause 51(1) with the word “necessary”, because otherwise Ministers will be given an incredible level of power to use their own discretion to decide what is appropriate. We have raised concerns before about the level of power that such clauses give Ministers. Changing “appropriate” to “necessary” would allay some of those concerns: it would be a stronger test and would require a stronger case from Ministers. I think that is a reasonable request.

Before I move on to Executive privilege more generally, may I address something the Minister said? When he raised his concerns about having a sunset clause that specified a date of 29 March 2021, he said that the agreement might be made very close to that date. That is incredibly worrying, given that we do not yet have any agreement or any idea what things will look like on exit day. The Government and the EU look likely to push the matter as close to the wire as possible, because it seems that there is an awful lot of distance to travel—particularly since the Government do not actually know what they want. If businesses face the same situation approaching 29 March 2021, after a two-year transition process—if the Minister wants to call it an implementation process, that is absolutely fine—and two years after having gone through a crazy period when they had no idea what was coming round the corner, that will be a major problem for them. It will be a major problem for productivity, as has been mentioned throughout. It is incredibly worrying that, at the end of a two-year transition period, we might still not be clear about exactly how things will look a very short period afterwards.

On what the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said about the duty to check the powers of the Executive and not to alter the balance, I argue that we actually do need to alter the balance. I find this job incredibly frustrating in a number of ways because of the extreme power of the Executive. In a lot of cases, they do not have to use their parliamentary majority—they do not currently have one—because they have Executive privilege to do a number of things that I do not believe they should have the power to do. In many cases, only Ministers are able to table amendments, programme motions and so on, because the Executive have that power. They also have the power to set the agenda. That means that, for parliamentarians outwith the Government—whether they are on the Government Back Benches or in opposition—things are more difficult.

The current system of Executive privilege is completely unbalanced. It should be shifted towards the Government having to use their parliamentary majority to do things. That would make this a better place. I am shocked that more parliamentarians are not as enraged as I am by that, and that it is not brought up in the House more often. It is not a good way to run a Parliament, and it should be changed.

That is important in relation to the Bill because the absence of sunset clauses gives Ministers powers in perpetuity that I do not believe they should have in perpetuity. In some cases, I do not think they should have them at all; they should have to be adequately scrutinised by Parliament and have to get measures through votes. The absence of sunset clauses gives Ministers powers for ever more, and I do not believe that should happen. It may be that, 10 years down the line, a Minister decides that something relates to the UK leaving the EU and therefore makes what he thinks is an appropriate change. I do not believe that should continue to be possible.

That is particularly important in respect of clause 51. I can see some of the arguments the Government may make about other clauses—they may say the changes they permit are just tinkering with technical regulations in relation to VAT, customs or excise duties—but in this clause Ministers give themselves power to make more fundamental changes. That completely fails the people who voted for Brexit to take back control. The Government say they intend to support that view and to assist people with taking back control, but what they are doing here absolutely will not achieve that aim; it will concentrate power for ever more in the hands of the Executive. The Government need to think carefully about that.

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. I will not rehearse the entertaining conversation we had about “appropriate” and “necessary”, but I understand her points. However, I maintain that there is a logical, lexical complication with—[Interruption.] Yes, I am getting drawn back into the debate again. I do not want to go there.

The second, pertinent point the hon. Lady raised was that the Bill, by not having the sunset clauses that she seeks, conjures up the possibility of us catering for a very late deal. Although it does indeed allow for that eventuality, that is not the same as us suggesting that we expect it to happen. We are balancing the likelihood of a very late deal, which I suggest is extremely low, with the consequences of that happening, which would be significant. In a sense, it is almost analogous to why we insure our house. We do not expect it to go up in flames during our lifetime, but given the consequences of that happening, it is prudent to insure. On that basis, we are applying the same kind of principle in this particular situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

Thank you, Mrs Main. Both amendments would change the word “appropriate” to “necessary”. The first amendment relates to the powers that Ministers have over changing statutory instruments. The second also relates to statutory instruments, but in terms of transitional, transitory or saving provisions. We have previously rehearsed why I think “necessary” is a better word to use in these circumstances. The Minister thinks “appropriate” is better, so I imagine he will not need to speak for long in responding to my amendments.

[Mel Stride]

I will be brief. I am aware—it is one reason why I have been speaking fairly rapidly—that we still have a little to get through, and I do not want to deprive the Opposition of the opportunity to fully scrutinise what remains of the Bill. Clause 54 confers a power on the Treasury or the Secretary of State to make provision in consequence of the Bill. As the hon. Lady might expect, the Government do not feel that the amendments are either appropriate or necessary. On that basis, I hope she will consider withdrawing it.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55

Commencement

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I will be brief. Jeremy White from the Chartered Institute of Taxation said:

“The only frictionless trade known to man is customs union.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2018; c. 28, Q33.]

I wholeheartedly agree. The Scottish National party’s position is and has always been that we should remain in the customs union with the EU. That is the only sensible way of eliminating all barriers to frictionless trade.

The thing about having a free trade agreement that removes tariffs is that tariffs are not the only barriers to trade. They are not the only thing to cause friction at borders and problems for companies and individuals. The non-tariff barrier issues include things like stacking lorries, which we heard about in relation to the issue of roll-on/roll-off; how companies and organisations will make customs declarations; the digitalisation or not of customs declarations; and the standardisation of rules of origin, which is the biggest issue relating to the customs union. Those who are exporting to the EU will have to complete rules of origin documentation, having never had to do it before. If we do not have a shared external tariff, that will happen.

I am absolutely clear that this is a good new clause. We need frictionless trade with the European Union, but I am clear that the only way to achieve that is by being in the customs union.

[Mel Stride]

Amendments 18 and 21 to clause 55 and new clause 10 seek to require the Treasury to review the likely effects of the Bill on frictionless trade with the EU, and for the Chancellor to report that to Parliament before commencement. I assure the Committee that the Government are committed to providing information on the impact once the outcome of the negotiations is clearer.

We believe that putting those requirements on the face of the Bill is unnecessary. Any changes will be set out in secondary legislation, and Parliament will of course have the ability to consider, scrutinise and decide upon the content of that legislation in the normal way. Furthermore, any review that is carried out before the outcome of the negotiations will necessarily be somewhat speculative.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I have significant concerns about the way this clause is going to work, given that the UK Government’s priority in the Border Force has been immigration rather than customs staff. Therefore, there has been an erosion of the customs staff who have got experience and understanding of the frontline. I am not yet convinced. Although the Government are talking about putting extra people into HMRC, I have not heard enough about equivalent extra staff being put into the Border Force so that it can appropriately police things in relation to customs. I have significant concerns about the border experience, and I note that that is not just on the south coast of England. We have borders when things come in on international flights or ports outside the south coast of England. It needs to be taken over the whole geographical spread of the United Kingdom.

[Mel Stride]

Amendments 19 and 22 to clause 55 and new clause 11 seek to require HMRC to review the likely effects of the Bill on the border experience of importers and exporters, and those engaged in associated economic activities, and the Chancellor to report that to Parliament before commencement of the Bill. The reasons why the Government will resist them are similar to the reasons given for resisting the last group of amendments. It is not appropriate to legislate for such a review, because the experience of businesses at the border will depend on the outcome of the negotiations with the EU, the resulting details of the new customs regime and the resulting changes needed to maintain a fully functioning and legally operable VAT and excise regimes.

To respond to the specific points the hon. Member for Aberdeen North made about the Border Force, it is absolutely vital, as she has suggested, that we have appropriate resource. Of course, that is a Home Office matter and not within the direct remit of HMRC or the immediate scope of the Bill, but I reassure her that we are working across Government and closely with the Home Office to ensure that, whatever occurs in the negotiation and whatever the results for our day one arrangements, we will be ready in terms of both the Border Force and Customs and Excise.

[Peter Dowd]

The Minister has heard what I have to say. We will not be pressing the amendment, although we will press the new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

This is the last section on which I will be moving anything. Amendment 102 is a consequential amendment and relates to amendment 103. Amendment 103 requires an impact assessment to take place on the changes of the EU VAT area, as we have rehearsed, and the move from acquisition VAT to import VAT.

I am neither convinced nor clear that the Government have adequately undertaken an assessment of the impact. Some 132,000 new businesses will come into paying import VAT for the first time. I do not know that the Government are aware of how much of an impact that will have on those businesses. I am not yet at the stage where I believe the Government have done enough impact assessments.

I was pleased that the Minister talked earlier about looking sympathetically at having a system of VAT deferral or something of that sort to improve cashflow issues for businesses. I appreciate his saying that and look forward to more details about how that will work, so that businesses can make adequate plans. That is not the only issue that occurs on leaving the EU VAT area. For the other issues mentioned earlier, for example on triangulation simplification where companies would have to register for VAT in more countries, I am again not convinced that the Government have adequately assessed the impact they will have on businesses. They are therefore not in a position to explain that impact to businesses and assist them in mitigating it.

On new clause 13, I appreciate that the Minister has said he is sympathetic to making changes on the VAT deferral scheme, but I intend to press new clause 13 to a vote so that it is written on the Bill and is not just words from the Minister that the Government agree to a VAT deferral scheme. The new clause would ensure that. I do not intend to push amendments 102 and 103 to the vote, but I may seek to return to amendment 103 on Report.

[Mel Stride]

I will start by addressing new clause 13. The hon. Lady will be aware that the issue of the potential move from acquisition VAT to import VAT and its effect on cash flow for businesses was raised by the Chancellor in the autumn Budget. We are very aware of that, as the Chancellor has indicated.

On Second Reading, from memory, I was intervened on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), the Chair of the Treasury Committee, who raised the same issue. Prior to that, I had had a meeting with her to discuss the matter in some detail. I was able to provide her with an assurance on the Floor of the House that was sympathetic—I think that word was used—to the issue. We certainly do not wish for a situation in which we are significantly damaging businesses as a consequence of any changes. Indeed, in this debate I have clarified that, under the terms of section 38 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994, we have the powers to make the kind of changes that my right hon. Friend and I would probably agree are appropriate.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for not pressing amendments 102 and 103, which seek to prevent the Government legislating for a future outside the EU VAT area before we produce an impact assessment on the effects that leaving the EU will have on imports.

[Mel Stride]

That question prompts another question: at what point do we reach that matter in the negotiations with the European Union? It is not possible to answer that question because it depends on when we get our deal and where the parameters around VAT, imports and exports are. All those matters land in that negotiation. I reiterate the reassurance that we have the ability and the powers within the VAT Act to act accordingly and we have a firm intention to ensure that we deal with the concern we have all identified.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Setting the customs tariff: enhanced parliamentary procedure

“(1) This section applies to—

(a) the first regulations to be made under section 8, and

(b) any other regulations to be made under that section the effect of which is an increase in the amount of import duty payable under the customs tariff in a standard case (within the meaning of that section).

(2) No regulations to which this section applies may be made by the Treasury in exercise of the duty in section 8(1) except in accordance with the steps set out in this section.

(3) The first step is that a Minister of the Crown must lay before the House of Commons a draft of the regulations that it is proposed be made

(4) The second step is that a Minister of the Crown must make a motion for a resolution in the House of Commons setting out, in respect of proposed regulations of which a draft has been laid in accordance with subsection (3)—

(a) the rate of import duty applicable to goods falling within a code given in regulations previously made under section 8 or in the draft of the regulations laid in accordance with subsection (3);

(b) anything of a kind mentioned in section 8(3)(a) or (b) by reference to which the amount of any import duty applicable to any goods is proposed to be determined; and

(c) the meaning of any relevant expression used in the motion.

(5) The third step is that the House of Commons passes a resolution arising from the motion made in the form specified in subsection (4) (whether in the form of that motion or as amended).

(6) The fourth step is that the regulations that may then be made must, in respect of any matters specified in subsection (4)(a) to (c), give effect to the terms of the resolution referred to in subsection (5).”—(Peter Dowd.)

This new clause establishes a system of enhanced parliamentary procedure for regulations setting the customs tariff, with a requirement for the House of Commons to pass an amendable resolution authorising the rate of import duty on particular goods.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Thursday 1st February 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 117, in clause 25, page 17, line 2, leave out “1998” and insert “2018”.

This amendment seeks to provide that the powers of disclosure cannot be exercised in breach of the updated data protection framework to be enshrined in the Data Protection Bill as enacted.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. Amendment 117 is a tidying-up amendment. The Scottish Law Commission raised the point that the relevant data protection legislation for the purposes of the Bill will be the Data Protection Act 2018, not the Data Protection Act 1998. The amendment would simply make a technical change to ensure that the correct legislation is used.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. Clause 25 permits disclosures for customs duty purposes, but makes it clear that disclosures that would contravene the Data Protection Act 1998 are not permitted. Amendment 117 would provide instead that disclosures that would contravene the Data Protection Act 2018—currently the Data Protection Bill—were not permitted.

The Government intend that data protection safeguards will need to be complied with when powers under the Bill are exercised. Given that the Data Protection Bill is not yet in law, it would be inappropriate to refer to it in this Bill, but I am happy to assure the Committee that the Government are committed to ensuring appropriate data protection safeguards and will therefore seek to make the appropriate amendments at the appropriate time. In the meantime, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendment.

[Kirsty Blackman]

If the Government amended the Bill to specify “appropriate data protection legislation”, rather than “the Data Protection Act 1998”, that would fix the problem and ensure that the correct legislation is used. I am sure that the Minister has listened, so I will not press the amendment to the vote, but I hope the Government will make reasonable changes on Report or at another stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 26 to 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Clause 30

General provision for the purposes of import duty

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

The word “unprecedented” could be applied to almost everything that happens in the future; it is always different to that which occurred in the past. I think it might be stretching Parliament’s patience if on every occasion we came across something unprecedented, we conjured up some unprecedented way of dealing with it. I really do not want to re-rehearse all my arguments on the relative merits, proportionality, appropriateness and so on of the various approaches that we take on those matters. To conclude, we believe that the various new parliamentary processes proposed would hamper the UK’s ability to respond swiftly to future developments and to provide an important but proportionate safety net to UK industry in a timely fashion.

Amendments 94 and 95 seek to retain the effect of direct EU legislation. Amendment 94 would do that by retaining EU regulations on VAT that will be brought into UK law as a result of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. According to the explanatory statement accompanying the amendment, that is so the EU legislation in the area will continue to have effect during the implementation period. Amendment 95 seeks to limit the power to exclude certain provisions of the VAT-implementing regulations.

The Bill enables the Government to respond to a range of outcomes. By way of background, the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and subordinate legislation already implements the majority of EU law on VAT, including the VAT directive. The 1994 Act as amended by the Bill will continue to apply post-EU exit. Few EU regulations apply to VAT and in the main those relate to single market reciprocal arrangements such as exchange of information. In the absence of an agreement, those will simply have no application—we would not want them to be incorporated into UK law for obvious reasons—which is why they are disapplied by clause 42(1). Removal of EU legislation that is no longer required or otherwise deficient is anticipated in the withdrawal Bill.

At this stage I will deal with the specific point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North about VAT, and how it operates now and might operate once we have left the European Union. She has raised issues that will certainly be very important—it is not the first time that she has raised such issues—to how businesses interact with what will then be the remaining EU27. I made it clear on Second Reading that we will look sympathetically and appropriately at the particular issue of the change from acquisition VAT to import VAT, including the change in timing of VAT payments with its effect on a large number of businesses as they trade with the European Union in future.

The note to amendment 94 refers to ensuring that EU legislation continues to have effect during an implementation period, but it may not be necessary to switch our provision on until after a transitional period or at all. Alternatively, EU regulations disapplied under clause 42(1) could be reinstated by the power in clause 51, which we will come to. What is ultimately required will depend on the outcome of the negotiations. However, we anticipate that the rules in an implementation period will be broadly reflective of the existing ones.

Amendments 89 and 90 seek to change the parliamentary process for some of the regulation-making powers provided in parts 1 and 3 of the Bill and their related schedules. For indirect taxation measures, it is common to have a framework in primary legislation supplemented by secondary legislation. The Bill establishes a comprehensive framework for a new standalone customs regime that will be underpinned by detailed and technical secondary legislation.

The trade remedies framework contains a great deal of such technical detail and the secondary legislation made under the Bill will comply with WTO rules, which is why we propose that the regulations are subject to the negative procedure. With that I ask Opposition Members to consider withdrawing their amendment, or at least the Committee to resist them.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I will begin by arguing slightly with the Minister and then I will go on to be a bit nicer to him—so it may start off badly, but it will get better.

The Minister said that the case had not been made for the operation of delegated legislation being inadequate. I believe that the case has been made that how delegated legislation in this House operates is inadequate, in particular by the gentleman from the Hansard Society who gave evidence in Committee. He was pretty scathing about the negative procedure in particular, but also about the other delegated legislation methods. Most of us around the House see the shortcomings in how delegated legislation operates, especially given the lack of scrutiny and amendability, whether by the Opposition or Back-Bench Government Members. There are major shortcomings in how delegated legislation works. I think that few people outwith Government would say that it is all working fine, because the Government have an interest in ensuring that measures have little scrutiny.

On the movement from acquisition VAT to import VAT, I appreciate that the Minister will consider it sympathetically. I am not sure whether HMRC would make any sympathetic changes as part of a public notice process or in some other way, or whether legislation would be needed to include VAT deferral methods or something similar. Whatever it is, it would be useful for it to happen sooner rather than later, and for the Government also to set out their intentions for how any scheme would work sooner rather than later, so business can have a level of certainty.

I was pleased by what the Minister said about increasing head count in HMRC to ensure that customs will work more smoothly. That is welcome, but the information that we have had thus far about the resourcing of HMRC has not been particularly in-depth; it has just been that head count will increase. There is no clarity about how those people will be deployed or what level of support businesses will receive from HMRC, for example, when they make both the change in relation to VAT and any customs changes that they need to make.

We expect that 132,000 firms will be caught by VAT on imports for the first time. That is a significant number of firms currently wondering how it is going to work. The sooner they can have that information, the better. We do not want negative impacts on our economy, although it is just the case that Brexit will have negative impacts on our economy, because the single market is better for our economy than any possible trade deal, even if it includes services. Although our preferred position is to remain in the EU and second best would be remaining in the single market and the customs union, whatever we can do to mitigate the impacts on businesses and on people who live in our constituencies—in towns, cities and rural areas—we will push the Government to do. We are trying to mitigate the worst possible excesses of the most extreme Brexit. We are driving off a cliff with a huge amount of spikes at the bottom. We are just trying to have fewer spikes at the bottom of the cliff. That is what we are asking for, particularly in relation to VAT.

I would like to return to these amendments and to new clause 12 on Report, so I do not intend to press them to a vote at this point, but I appreciate the Minister’s time and attention, as well as his comments.

[Mel Stride]

That was a thoughtful contribution, and I would like to respond to one or two of the points raised by the hon. Lady.

First, on delegated legislation, I am aware that there is a difference of opinion between the sides of this Committee generally about how rigorous oversight is relative to the measures to which the powers relate. The hon. Lady prayed in aid the Hansard Society’s evidence during the witness session, and I think that I am right in saying that the Hansard Society representatives stated that there was no circumstance in which the enhanced level of scrutiny proposed by Her Majesty’s Opposition throughout the various debates that we have had—that is not quite what the hon. Lady is putting forward—would appropriately apply to measures in the Bill, so I am not sure that this heavy version of scrutiny would necessarily be supported by the Hansard Society, although it would be interesting to know.

Secondly, I would like to address the point about Government not having an interest in scrutiny. We most certainly do, because it makes for better law. Even from a narrow perspective, there is always a Government interest in ensuring that there are no problems further down the line and that we do not need to revisit legislation to deal with the dissatisfaction of Parliament or, indeed, of Members of Parliament from our own party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I rise to support the amendments. I said in a previous sitting—one is encouraged to repeat oneself here—that one of the first things I said when I saw the clause was, “What constitutes a public notice? What does that even mean?” I am no more happy about it now that I have found out what the definition is. I am concerned that there are no rules about how such notices need to be shared. The Government probably need to look at putting into all laws that come forward what constitutes a public notice and what constitutes the public having enough notice of something.

With regard to this clause, it would be sensible for HMRC, whatever changes it makes, to ensure that everyone knows what those changes are and that all affected people are aware of them. Otherwise, we will have a situation where HMRC chases people for doing the wrong thing when they did not know they were doing the wrong thing, because the change was tweeted on the Prime Minister’s Twitter feed rather than put out in an accessible format. I do not imagine that the Government would be daft enough to put a public notice in a place where no one would see it, but it would be useful to have clearer rules about public notices. I therefore support what my honourable colleagues on the Labour Front Bench seek to do with the amendments.

[Mel Stride]

Amendment 140 seeks to limit the powers in the Bill to use public notices. However, a notable effect of the amendment would be to remove the ability to use regulations to cover matters that are dealt with in a public notice, which may limit the Government’s ability to package delegated legislation in the most effective way.

The circumstances in which provision can be made by public notice are well defined in the Bill. There is no power in the Bill to allow for provision that may be made by regulations to be made alternatively by public notice. I reassure the Committee that it is not unusual for public notices to be used to make provision in relation to the administration of tax regimes. They are typically used, for example, to make provision that is purely technical or administrative in nature; that may be subject to regular updating, including to take account of external factors; that may need to be changed swiftly; that is based on external sources; or that is not otherwise required to be set out in secondary legislation, but is included to improve transparency. An example in the Bill is the provision enabling the form and content of a customs declaration to be set out in a public notice.

Another effect of the amendment would be to disapply subsections (6) to (8) of clause 32 in respect of public notices, although they would continue to apply in respect of regulations. Let me reassure the Committee that those subsections do not widen the subject matter that public notices can be used to address. As I have stated, that subject matter is set out clearly by the relevant clauses and schedules. On that basis, I urge the Opposition to withdraw amendment 140.

Amendment 141 aims to require public notices published under the Bill to be made in a form that is accessible to

“all people who are likely to be affected by or interested in”

them. I sympathise with the amendment’s general thrust. It is, of course, vital that any public notice published by HMRC is made available in an accessible format to everyone affected. However, I assure the Committee that including such an obligation in the Bill is unnecessary. HMRC has extensive experience of producing public notices to communicate changes in tax policy to affected parties, whether individuals or businesses, as part of its wider engagement with bodies that represent customers. That includes ensuring that any information set out in a public notice is clear and accessible. Indeed, the Government already make everything we publish on gov.uk accessible and available in a variety of formats. The public notices published under the Bill will be no different.

HMRC also has good working relationships with a range of business representative groups and uses those channels to reach the wider business community. For example, it is normal practice to share advance drafts with business groups to seek their views. HMRC will continue to follow the same approach with its public notices on the changes introduced by the Bill. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendments.

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is probably raising an issue that would be outside the context of the agricultural safeguarding regime. The regime relates to sudden drops in the price of goods, and indeed certain increases in the volume of goods that are being imported, as opposed to the kind of issues he raises. Phytosanitary issues are outside the context of the Bill but will be subject to the kind of negotiations and measures that we bring into effect in that particular regard.

The Bill introduces a comprehensive framework for a new stand-alone customs regime, which will be underpinned by detailed and technical secondary legislation. The Bill ensures that the scrutiny procedures that apply to the exercise of each power are appropriate and proportionate, taking into account the technical detail of the regulations and how quickly they need to be changed.

As I set out in addressing amendment 110, the effectiveness of the agricultural safeguards regime relies on its responsiveness. The proposed additional procedure would give rise to unacceptable delays, which would not allow the Government to respond quickly to changes in circumstances or to update the measures in a timely manner. The power in the clause is subject to the negative procedure. Given the technical nature and frequency of changes, the Government consider that appropriate and proportionate. I hope the Committee will agree that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The Minister made a relatively good point in relation to how many technical changes there may be. I will look into the frequency at which changes are likely to occur. If they will be frequent, I will not bring this matter back on Report, but if they will be infrequent, I will consider tabling an amendment. At this stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

International disputes etc

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

Clause 19, as the hon. Member for Bootle pointed out, allows for a full and partial relief from import duty. The EU customs regime provides for a relief from import duty on the basis of various factors, including the nature of the goods, their quantity and their value. Those reliefs support trade and address unintended outcomes. They can also be used to address situations in which a change to import duty would have negative consequences, whether for a specific entity or for UK interests as a whole. A relief may relate to a temporary movement, such as a visiting exhibition, or a permanent movement, such as the return of UK materials that were previously exported.

The circumstances in which goods will be eligible for a relief from import duty are carefully defined in EU law. They rely on conditions that ensure that they apply only to achieve the intended outcome. Examples include: where items are imported for scientific, educational or cultural purposes or research; where items are samples, whether for testing or to encourage future trade; where goods are donated or inherited; and where private individuals import goods upon transfer of residence to the United Kingdom due to marriage or for a period of study. The clause also covers goods imported for a specific authorised use that are placed on the home market—aircraft parts, for example, and goods that are temporarily imported, such as those for an art exhibition. Those are dealt with in more detail in the special procedures section.

Reliefs may apply to specific bodies or types of body. For example, reliefs support the operation of organisations such as charities, museums and galleries, as well as private individuals not trading. The changes made by clause 19 will allow the UK to provide full or partial relief from import duty.

Amendments 126 and 127 seek to apply the draft affirmative procedure to regulations made under clause 19. As I have set out and the Committee has had occasion to debate, the Bill ensures that the scrutiny procedures that apply to the exercise of each power are appropriate and proportionate. For the powers under clause 19, the negative procedure is both appropriate and proportionate, given the technicality of the regulations and the frequency and speed with which they may need to be made.

The hon. Member for Bootle raised the House of Lords report. The Government are looking at this issue not just in terms of the scope of the matters at hand and the power that is appropriate on that basis, but from a trading and customs point of view. We are considering the frequency with which we are likely to have to make changes and, accordingly, the ways in which the Treasury and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will have to work.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Clause 19, in effect, gives the Government power to create loopholes—tax reliefs—in the legislation. Given that this is a tax Bill, does the Minister not feel that it would be better for the tax reliefs it creates to be subject to more scrutiny, not less, so that they do not have unintended consequences?

[Mel Stride]

I would not describe the clause as creating loopholes. It simply allows us, by regulation, to ensure the kind of importations to which I referred earlier. The authorised use importation, for example, relates to goods coming into the country for a specific process before typically being exported out of the United Kingdom. Levying an import duty on such goods would clearly not be appropriate, since they get exported shortly thereafter.

The measures facilitate those particular circumstances, or indeed the loan of an artwork. We are told that the French President is suggesting that the Bayeux tapestry might come over here; that particular gesture would be another example where no import duty would be appropriate, and that particular item should be able to come in and out of the country without being bothered by Customs and Excise. I would argue that the measures are important facilitations rather than loopholes.

Each relief provided for under this power will be for a particular purpose and set out the detailed requirements—for example, in relation to the origin of goods or the purposes for which they are imported. The power will be necessary in the first instance to replicate existing reliefs within the EU, to give certainty to traders directly following our exit from the European Union. However, as circumstances change it may be necessary to adapt our system of reliefs to give UK businesses and individuals the support they need to flourish, and to do so in a timely and flexible manner. For any future reliefs, the Treasury would follow established processes, consulting on draft legislation.

[Peter Dowd]

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North made some valid points. The reality is that this, to all intents and purposes, is a tax relief. It can be dressed up in whatever way the Minister would like, but it is de facto a tax relief. We already have something like 1,400 tax reliefs, which ordinarily would come to Parliament for their ratification. This seems to be a potential slew of tax reliefs—I will not comment on whether they are good, bad or indifferent—that will be given the imprimatur of a Minister or the Treasury without Parliament having any say whatsoever in that tax raising. That is not a power that Parliament should give away lightly, so I am afraid we cannot accept the Minister’s explanation that these are somehow technicalities and nothing to do with tax and raising money, which is the prerogative of Parliament.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am concerned that this is a tax relief, and about the unintended consequences that might flow from it. The Minister almost seemed to say that the Government will make decisions on a case-by-case basis, but that should not be their intention. They should lay out the circumstances in which each kind of widget falls into each category. They are not deciding whether the Bayeux tapestry should be exempt from this duty, but whether artworks should be exempt. Those are pretty significant and major decisions, and I do not think they will be made with the frequency that the Minister suggests.

It might be that in 10 years’ time the world will have changed dramatically and we will be quite a different country, importing things that will need relief in a different way. That is fair enough, but the situation will not require regular change. Given that the measure seeks to encourage industry to flourish and to allow artworks to come to this country to be displayed, it will have a real impact on the UK’s future, so it is completely reasonable to ask the Government to allow more scrutiny. Such instances will not be that frequent, and the measure will have a big impact.

[Mel Stride]

I point the hon. Member for Aberdeen North to my earlier remarks. We believe that the measure is proportionate, particularly taking into account the frequency of the relevant changes. She is absolutely right about the Bayeux tapestry and the import of artworks; the measure sets the regulations by which those kinds of items will come in and go out of the country. There is no doubt that, in this arena of imports and these kinds of facilitations, changes are certain to occur through time, often of a highly technical nature and on a fairly frequent basis. On that basis, in terms of proportionality, there is a strong argument that we should stick with what is in the Bill.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

This is another amendment to try to get the Government to provide more information on the framework of the Bill. As I have said, I understand that it is a framework Bill, but more information could have been provided, particularly in the context of companies already having to contend with the move from CHIEF to CDS and the massive changes in customs that will be introduced. It would be good for companies to have an understanding—sooner rather than later—of customs agents and the hoops that those agents will need to jump through to be approved.

The amendment asks for the Government to produce a report in relation to

“the proposed criteria for appointment of Customs agents, and…the proposed standards which persons must meet to be approved for appointment”

within three months of the passing of the Bill. That will provide a level of certainty to companies about what criteria customs agents will be expected to meet in future. It is an incredibly uncertain time for businesses that export; they do not know what will happen next. This would give them a bit more understanding about the landscape that they will face.

[Mel Stride]

Clause 21 allows importers to appoint an agent to act on their behalf in respect of their import obligations. Currently, there is widespread use of customs agents who act on behalf of importers and exporters of goods, including by submitting customs declarations on their behalf. They provide a valuable service to importers and exporters.

There are two types of agent—direct and indirect, which are treated differently to represent the different relationships between them and those who appoint them. Direct agents make declarations on behalf of the importer, whereas indirect agents make declarations in their own name. Direct agents make their declaration using the importer’s identifier and they more often represent a domestic importer against whom any debt can be enforced. Indirect agents often represent overseas importers against whom any debt cannot easily be enforced. The changes made by clause 21 will allow the two classes of agent to be appointed.

The clause allows HMRC to make regulations about how the appointment is notified as well as withdrawn, which may be as little as confirming the appointment on the declaration. It also sets out the circumstances in which the agent is jointly liable for import duty.

Amendment 115 seeks to commit the Chancellor of the Exchequer to produce a report for the House of Commons regarding the introduction and regulation of customs agents under clause 21(7) within three months of the Bill’s enactment.

Clause 21(7) seeks to allow HMRC to introduce formal regulation regarding customs agents over and above the current requirement for them to adhere to customs procedures. The UK has authority to further regulate customs agents under the existing customs regime. There are currently no plans to introduce such additional regulation on customs agents, so requiring a report to be produced is unnecessary and will impose an administrative burden at a time when the UK is focusing on its future relationship with the EU. I would hope that the hon. Lady might reflect on my comments about no plans for change and withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

The amendment does not call for a review at all; it calls for a report to be provided. It is not about concerns being raised about the current operation of the scheme, but about how HMRC will look at the scheme going forward.

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Lady for that clarification. She is right: I said “review”. However, my comments are equally relevant to a report on how it is going and thoughts on how we move forward.

The inclusion of clause 22 reflects the feedback from businesses enjoying the benefits of the current AEO regime. In responding to calls for continuity in that regime, it will help to minimise any potential disruption. What is more, HMRC has already committed to improving the authorisation process for traders and has been meeting with businesses, as I outlined, since last autumn to consider practical improvements to the process. The process is ongoing and includes drawing on the best practice of other countries.

On the amendments, the draft regulations will make clear what the authorisation criteria for AEO status will be. It will largely be the same as the current EU criteria. Those regulations will also set out the details of AEO status, which will largely be the same as the current system.

[Kirsty Blackman]

It would be very useful to know whether the Minister has any idea when the regulations will come forward. Part of my concern was the lack of advance notice for businesses.

[Mel Stride]

That will be determined to a large degree by the negotiation that is in play with the European Union and by whether we have an implementation period. We are hopeful that such a period will be seen to be in our interest and that of the European Union. The measures will be brought in at the appropriate time, as and when we require our own stand-alone system, so that we are ready on day one and have the regulations that will allow us quickly and effectively to introduce AEO status. It is not about having a one-size-fits-all model. It is about having different classes so that we are able to be helpful in particular to the small and medium-sized enterprises that we recognise may benefit from a different approach from that for larger businesses.

Amendments 129 and 130 would apply the draft affirmative procedure to all regulations made under clause 22. The Bill ensures that the scrutiny procedures that apply to the exercise of each power are appropriate and proportionate considering the nature, length and technicality of the regulations and the frequency with which they are likely to be made. The Government believe that using the negative procedure under clause 22 provides a sufficient level of parliamentary scrutiny, while having regard to the technical nature of the regulations. The regulations may, for example, be used to specify the criteria and processes that HMRC uses when determining whether a business can be authorised as an AEO. Regulations may also set out where and when HMRC must take account of AEO status when administering the customs system. Adopting the draft affirmative procedure for these types of regulations will affect the expediency and efficient administration of the customs regime. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Thursday 25th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to be here and to have you in the Chair this afternoon, Mrs Main. We support new clause 1, which has been tabled by the Opposition, and we would be happy to support it if they decide to put it to the vote.

I have concerns about clause 8 because of the deficiencies that we discussed earlier. I hope that, by Report, the Government will have come back to some of the suggestions that the official Opposition and the Scottish National party have made, and given them some level of consideration. Although clause 8 has deficiencies, it is my working assumption that even if we were in a customs union—which would be my preferred option—we would still need to set our tariffs and to lodge those schedules with the World Trade Organisation, so, even in the event of the UK being in a customs union with the EU, I imagine that there would still be a requirement for the Government to have the power to set tariffs.

On that basis, clause 8 is necessary whether or not the Government decide to come out of the customs union or to pursue a customs union. So, although it is deficient, we need to do something. It would be useful if the Minister was to say that he might consider coming back on Report to some of our amendments—even if he said he would consider it, that would be incredibly helpful—but as I said, we will support Labour’s new clause.

[Mel Stride]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I thank the hon. Member for Bootle for his remarks. His usual brilliance was enhanced by an unknown quality of being able to summon dramatic music to enhance his comments. He gets better and better, the longer we hear from him.

The hon. Gentleman raised various general points, including the fact that this is, in effect, a Finance Bill and therefore will not be amended in the House of Lords. There are good reasons for that. There is a very, very long tradition for Bills that relate substantially to tax and the rating of charges to be handled in that way—both by this Government and by Labour, when it was in government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North has said, the amendment seeks to do two things. It would require the Treasury to consult before giving effect to a trade arrangement that has been agreed with another territory or country, and to make regulations in such circumstances.

To take the first of the points, any consultation on regulations made under clause 9 would not be meaningful as the Government would not be in a position to take account of the views received without withdrawing or renegotiating the agreement reached. As set out in the trade White Paper, the Government have committed to engaging stakeholders throughout the process of negotiating new trade arrangements.

On the proposed requirement for the Treasury to make regulations, it goes without saying that the Government are required to meet their international obligations in the trade agreements that they have entered into. The word “may” is used, however, because there might be unforeseen circumstances that make it inappropriate for the Treasury to be obliged to lay regulations. As I say, however, the Government will of course be bound their international obligations.

On that basis, I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

Clause 9 allows the Treasury to implement preferential trade arrangements on the recommendation of the Secretary of State. That will enable the rate of import duty applied to goods originating from a territory covered by a preferential arrangement to be lower than the standard rate.

The clause ensures that the tariff-related part of any new or existing free trade agreement can be implemented and enables the UK to continue the treatment that the British overseas territories currently receive. The Bill does not give the Government powers to sign such agreements but to implement the tariff parts of them.

The clause is essential to ensuring that the UK can implement any tariff outcome from negotiations with the EU. The Prime Minister has been clear that our aim is to secure a tariff-free trade deal with the EU. As a member of the EU, the UK is part of around 40 free trade agreements with countries and territories outside the European Union. When the UK leaves the EU, the Government are committed to seeking continuity in our trade relationships, including those covered by the EU’s FTAs or other EU preferential arrangements.

[Kirsty Blackman]

How is that going?

[Mel Stride]

That is a specific question for the Department for International Trade, but think all the indications are that we have been out speaking to many potential trading partners.

[Kirsty Blackman]

And current trading partners?

[Mel Stride]

Current trading partners and others. Obviously, as an EU member, we are bound not to enter into any other arrangements prior to our departure, but I am confident that we are having appropriate conversations at this stage of our withdrawal.

In addition, as set out in the trade White Paper, after leaving the EU, the UK will have the opportunity to

“look to forge new and ambitious trade relationships with our partners around the world”.

Clause 9 provides a basis for those aims.

The clause enables the UK to implement preferential import duties on goods originating in territories covered by a preferential arrangement. That will cover arrangements made bilaterally with a Government of another territory. A recent example is the comprehensive economic and trade agreement between the EU and Canada.

The Bill refers to making arrangements to allow preferential rates of import duties to apply before an agreement is ratified. That is common when implementing FTAs and is the case under the comprehensive economic and trade agreement, which has been provisionally adopted but is not yet fully ratified.

The clause will also enable the UK to continue to provide preferential tariff treatment to those British overseas territories, including the British Virgin Islands and the Falkland Islands, that currently receive that access under the EU via the overseas association decision.

As I was looking through new clause 2 during the hon. Member for Bootle remarks, my eagle eye spotted what I think is an error. Although subsection (1)(a) of the new clause would do what is intended—that the first regulations to be made under clause 9 will be subject to the provisions of the new clause—the explanatory statement and the points made in his speech suggest that subsection (1)(b) should relate to instances where there has been a lowering of import duties. In fact, as currently drafted, subsection (1)(b) refers to

“the effect of which is an increase in the amount of import duty”.

I can only imagine that that is a drafting error or has been lifted from new clause 1, which does refer to the increase in import duties. However, I fully understand what the hon. Gentleman intended, and I will deal with new clause 2 on the basis of its intention and of the way in which he describes it in the explanatory statement.

The new clause would put in place an additional parliamentary process for regulations giving preferential import duty arrangements to other countries. As I previously set out, for indirect tax matters, it is common to have framework primary legislation supplemented by secondary legislation. The Bill introduces a comprehensive framework for a new stand-alone customs regime. It ensures that the scrutiny and procedures that apply to the exercise of each power are appropriate and proportionate, taking into account the technicality of the regulations, the frequency with which they are likely to be made and how quickly the law may need to be changed.

Clause 9 allows the Treasury to give effect to the tariff section of trade arrangements once they have been negotiated. It is therefore appropriate and proportionate for the negative procedure to apply. Any delays in implementing preferential duties in trade arrangements could have significant impacts on UK supply chains or exporters who rely on the arrangements. As set out in the trade White Paper the Government are considering how to ensure that the process for negotiating new trade deals is transparent, efficient and effective, and we will ensure that Parliament is engaged throughout.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

Our new clause 3 would require the House of Commons to pass an amendable resolution authorising the key provisions of the proposed regulations. It would also require that regulations establishing a licensing or allocation system are subject to the affirmative procedure.

As with the other related new clause we have discussed today, there are four steps set out in our proposed process. First, the Minister lays a statement to the House along with the draft regulation that is proposed to be made. Secondly, the Minister lays a motion setting out the various duties and tariffs that the Government wish to impose. Thirdly, the House would have to pass a resolution on that motion. Finally, the regulations will be made. Amendment 11 is consequential on the above, making a small technical change to clause 32 to accommodate our proposals.

Ultimately, however, we are less concerned with the exact steps for any process for ensuring parliamentary oversight. We just want to see that the Government are acting on the principle that Parliament should have an extended role in scrutinising the changes in this regard. As I have said previously in relation to the other clauses, we seek to guarantee an enhanced parliamentary process. The logic is pretty undisputable. The Government have tabled this Bill as a financial Bill, as I referred to earlier on. In that regard, the House of Lords does not have any capacity to scrutinise it and the Commons does not have the same capacity it usually would. We ask, therefore, that as in all other financial matters a case is presented to the House for a debate and a vote.

It would be a very unfortunate outcome if the Treasury was to acquire powers to alter the rate of taxation without such basic democratic processes. The Government really should think a little longer than this—it is not a short-term matter. It is of course more conceivable that they may be in opposition sooner than they think. They should be looking to construct a fair process for scrutiny, with, in effect, cross-party agreement as to what that would be, in the light of this significant change that we are about to face in one way or another, maybe within the next 12 months or so, possibly a little longer, but the reality is that we are facing change. This House has to face up to the fact that scrutiny processes need looking at, especially with regard to finance.

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North rightly raises the issues around quotas. First, we have to work out what those quotas will be. We have existing arrangements through the European Union and we are currently in discussions regarding, as she has suggested, how the various quotas should be allocated, whether that be on the basis of consumption, or consumption and other issues that we might consider. The point I would make on that is that this Bill is enabling, in that sense, rather than prescribing or seeking to suggest any particular outcome to those discussions.

In the hon. Lady’s second point she raised an example of 100 tonnes or 100,000 tonnes of beef, and a certain amount coming by way of a quota to the UK, and then circumstances of that changing not to our liking, and asked what we would do in such a situation. That prompts the question as to where the quota itself originated.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am sorry; I was obviously not particularly clear when I was making that case. I was suggesting that this was why third countries are upset about how the division might work, because 90 plus 10 is not the same as 100 in a bigger area, because they cannot just redistribute that in the event of a market collapse in the UK, because the 10 is for the UK and they cannot just send that to the EU, because the quota for the EU is now only 90.

[Mel Stride]

I think I have the gist of the point. In terms of the overarching point about what one would do if the arrangements come to be seen, in the way they are measured, as being inappropriate, that prompts the question where the quotas originate in the first place. If it is in the schedule of concessions at the WTO, I guess we would have to revisit that aspect of it. If it comes from provisions within a free trade agreement, I guess we would attempt to renegotiate that aspect, or perhaps trigger some provisions within that agreement to resolve the issue at hand. If it was a so-called autonomous quota in which we had decided to implement a quota regime or quotas at the request of a third country, I imagine that we would be able to reverse or change that in some way through secondary legislation as well, depending on the precise nature of that agreement.

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 25th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mel Stride]

Clause 3 does two important things: first, it establishes an obligation to declare goods that are imported into the United Kingdom; and, secondly, it introduces the concept of declaring goods for a specific customs procedure. Those are the basic building blocks of the UK’s new import duty regime.

The need to declare goods for a customs procedure is fundamental to any import duty regime. The procedure for which goods are declared determines when liability to import duty arises. The clause goes on to introduce another fundamental part of a customs regime—the customs procedures for which chargeable goods may be declared.

The purpose of importing goods may be to make them available for use in the UK, in which case they can be declared for a procedure known as free circulation, at which point they incur a charge to import duty. However, it is not always the intention to make goods freely available when they are imported into the United Kingdom. Goods are often brought to the UK for different reasons, such as to put them into customs warehouses for the time being, or to transport them through the UK on the way to another destination outside the country. In situations such as those, a business may declare the goods for a special customs procedure.

Special procedures either defer when a liability to import duty is incurred, or reduce the rate of import duty applicable to goods, provided of course the relevant conditions have been satisfied. Without those procedures, a business would have no option but to declare imported goods for the free circulation procedure and incur any import duty up front.

UK businesses currently rely extensively on special procedures, which together provide reliefs worth hundreds of millions of pounds each month. The provision made by the clause is supplemented by the detailed rules set out in schedules 1 and 2, to which I shall now turn.

Schedule 1 sets out the obligations to present and declare goods to customs on import. Many of the matters covered are of an administrative nature, such as the information that a declaration must contain or the time limits for when it must be made. I am sure that the Committee would not wish me to explain all those matters in detail, but I should highlight one important matter in which I think the Committee will be interested.

Paragraph 3 of the schedule enables Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to specify when goods must be declared before they are imported into the UK. That is an important point. Steps might be needed to reduce the risk of disrupting the flow of traffic at locations where goods need to be cleared quickly through customs. An obvious case in point is a port such as Dover, where significant amounts of goods arrive on roll-on roll-off ferries. It would clearly be of great help, in a situation such as that, to require the goods in question to be declared before their arrival at the port. That situation is therefore addressed by the schedule.

Schedule 2 deals with special customs procedures. There are five in all, namely: storage, transit, inward processing, authorised use and temporary admission. I will briefly describe their purpose.

A storage procedure allows imported goods to be stored without incurring liability to import duty. The goods must be kept in an approved facility, such as a customs warehouse or a free zone. There are currently no free zones in the UK, but should an area be so designated, provision may be made under the Bill for its operation.

A transit procedure allows goods to move between two places in the UK without incurring import duty. For example, goods from another country can pass through the UK en route to another destination, or goods within the UK can move from a customs warehouse to a port for re-export without needing to be declared for free circulation.

An inward processing procedure allows goods to be imported into the UK with the purpose of undergoing a qualifying processing activity without incurring a charge to import duty at that point. Once the procedure is discharged, goods may be exported without any import duty being due. Alternatively, a business may decide to declare the processed goods for free circulation in the UK and incur duty at that point.

An authorised use procedure is designed to assist certain industries by allowing a zero or reduced rate of import duty to apply to goods brought to the UK for a specific use. Finally, a temporary admission procedure allows for a relief from import duty for goods that enter the UK temporarily and for a particular reason. For example, that procedure applies when artworks situated overseas are brought to the UK on loan for display in a public gallery.

Taken together, the special procedures I have outlined exist to support trade fluidity and facilitate the movement of goods into the UK. Provision made by and under schedule 2 will allow HMRC to operate these special procedures. The obligation to declare imported goods is essential to an effective customs regime, and an effective customs regime must include special procedures that offer businesses in the UK the simplifications and reliefs that they rely on.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee, and to take part in the scrutiny of this important piece of legislation.

The Minister is right to talk about the administrative nature of the clause and its associated schedules. It appears to be the Government’s position that the UK will choose to leave the customs union. We are not yet clear whether they will pursue another form of customs union with the EU, but if they do not, or if they do not manage to get a customs union with the EU, it is likely that significantly more customs declarations will be required because we will not have those coming from the EU.

My concern about the clause arises from Tuesday’s oral evidence sessions, and it would be useful for the Minister to provide an update on that. Various organisations expressed concerns about the resourcing of HMRC and Border Force. Border Force is the first line for many imports, ensuring that customs declarations are made appropriately and that all appropriate processes are followed.

On HMRC, the concern was that no customs officers will be based north of Glasgow or Edinburgh. If goods are coming in to places such as Inverness, it is a three-hour drive for people to get there and look at those goods. What assessment has the Minister made of the extra resourcing that HMRC will need to fulfil the obligations in the clause and the schedules? Reasonable concerns have been expressed by businesses and organisations.

[Mel Stride]

I welcome the hon. Lady to the Committee and thank her for that initial contribution.

In terms of where the final deal with the European Union lands, whether we have a form of customs union with the remaining 27 members is subject to negotiation. The Government have made it clear that we wish the end point to be the facilitation of trade between ourselves and the remaining 27 members of the customs union. The Bill provides for that end point to be as close as possible to the existing rules and regulations around the Union customs code; that is very much what the Bill seeks to achieve. At the same time, the Bill retains the flexibility to ensure that we can put into effect the necessary and appropriate measures no matter where the deal lands—or, indeed, if there were to be no deal at all with the European Union, as we certainly do not expect.

The hon. Lady raised the important issue of HMRC resourcing. As we move towards our day one scenario—whatever that may finally look like—I assure her that the Government are vigorously engaged not just with issues around HMRC’s human resource requirements, but with other infrastructure requirements, whether for hard infrastructure or information technology systems such as the Customs Declaration Service, which will be important.

To address her particular issue, the head of HMRC has made it clear that his feeling is that we will need between 3,000 and 5,000 additional staff across HMRC to ensure that we cover off, wherever the day one deal lands. For an organisation of well in excess of 50,000 personnel, such an increment in staffing, particularly given that some will be reallocated rather than entirely new recruits, is perfectly manageable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Committee. He reiterates the point that the hon. Lady just made, so I will spare the Committee a repeat of every element of my answer. However, specifically with relation to the points made in the evidence session by Mr Runswick, the trade unions have been resistant to the changes to HMRC wholesale, right across the piece. Therefore, when it comes to arguments about whether HMRC can be effective in clamping down on avoidance, evasion and non-compliance, bringing in tax yield and so on, the argument has been run that we need a number of offices in multiple locations to do that.

The critical answer is that the very nature of running an efficient tax system and customs regime needs technology, the right skills and the right people. That lends itself to having a concentration of such individuals in hubs, where skills and IT can be developed and brought in to be effective. Without repeating my answer to the hon. Gentleman’s hon. Friend, the Government and HMRC are clear that the configurations of the new hubs will lend themselves to appropriately support the new customs regime.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Other than the resourcing, which the Minister has fully addressed, I am concerned about the geographical issue. We do not want people to be a number of hours’ drive from the customs officials. Can the Minister give us some comfort that even though there might not be hubs in the area, there will be customs officers based closely and able to respond on a 24-hour basis?

[Mel Stride]

I can certainly assure the hon. Lady that the situation as it will pertain when we move to the new hubs—we are making some assumptions about what exactly the end point of the negotiations will be—will be sufficient to make sure we have a customs regime that works, that is low friction, and keeps trade moving and raises revenues on the duties that we may or may not apply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I mentioned during Second Reading that the Law Society of Scotland had produced a paper on the Bill, and I offered to provide the Minister with a copy. If he does not yet have one, I am still happy to do that. The paper explains more fully the rationale behind these three amendments.

The amendments are not necessarily about changing the tack of the Bill; they are about making better law and ensuring that the law is clearer. I will quote a short extract from the paper submitted by the Law Society of Scotland. It states that,

“the power under clause 8(1)(a) to classify goods ‘according to their nature, origin or any other factor’ is a very broad one. At the very least, this should be limited to ‘any other relevant factor’ but it would be preferable to limit the scope of this provision by giving an indication of the types of factor which might be appropriate in this context.”

So, in our amendment, we have taken up the “very least” option suggested by the Law Society of Scotland. It seems a bit extreme for the Minister to be able to make changes or decisions on “any” factors, some of which may not be relevant. Adding the word “relevant” would ensure that, under the clause, the Minister was stuck to making changes or decisions in relation to relevant factors. It is simply a small technical change that would tighten up the way the law is written.

Similarly, amendments 105 and 118 are very small technical changes that the Law Society of Scotland suggests would be preferable or useful additions to the clause. It suggests that clause 8(3)(b) say, “the number, weight or volume of the goods or any other measure of their quantity or size.” Again, the aim is just to tighten up the language and ensure that the laws that we are starting off with in this wonderful Brexit Britain are as good and clear as possible and can be interpreted, if they need to be—by a court, for example—in the best possible way. As I said, they are very small technical changes, and I would appreciate it if the Minister would consider them.

[Mel Stride]

Clause 8 requires the Treasury to establish and maintain a customs tariff. The rates of duties set under this clause will apply to goods from every country, unless varied by another clause. It enables the implementation of a range of tariff options, so that the UK can respond to changes in the global trading environment, both now and in the future.

The UK currently applies duty to imports to the UK under the Union customs code. The standard duty rates of the UK, as a member of the EU, are contained in the common external tariff. When we leave the EU, this Bill will require the Treasury to establish and maintain a customs tariff that will, among other things, specify the rate of import duty applicable to goods. The UK is working with the WTO to establish the UK’s bound tariff schedule. That schedule sets the maximum rate of import duty that a country may apply to imports. The UK can then choose what rate to apply, provided it is at or below the bound rate. Import duty rates specified under this clause must be consistent with those international obligations.

Clause 8 sets out what must be contained in the customs—

[Mel Stride]

I am sorry, Ms Buck. I assumed that we were also debating that clause 8 stand part. My apologies. I will turn specifically to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. Although she may see them as clarifying matters, the Government’s view is that they are additional and unnecessary amendments to areas where no further clarification is required.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Just to be clear, it is not just me who sees them as necessary in terms of clarification; it is the Law Society of Scotland, which, I assume, knows quite a lot about the law, and therefore feels that these are appropriate changes that would be helpful in terms of the actual law.

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention and I fully appreciate that she is taking up recommendations made by the Law Society of Scotland, but let me comment on the two fundamental points she has raised.

First, relating to the relevance—that relevant considerations should be taken into account. The relevance of having the word “relevant” in there, prompts the question whether anybody would ever take decisions based on things that were entirely irrelevant, or at least not relevant. If one went down the road suggested by the hon. Lady, the word “relevant” would probably be inserted in multiple places throughout all the legislation that we ever pass in this House. It is understood that rational Ministers and others would take relevant decisions, rather than irrelevant decisions.

Secondly, before I go too far down this tongue-twisting route—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

I am not a legal expert. I obviously appreciate that different words have different meanings in different legal contexts, but from the Government’s point of view, we are satisfied that there is not a requirement to have the word “relevant” inserted. That would be superfluous—to throw in another term—as would be the insertion of the word “number”, for reasons I have given to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, because it would not affect the functioning or meaning of that clause.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am not going to press the Minister on the word “number”, but on the word “relevant”, I think the Minister dug a hole when he was talking about “rational” Chancellors or Ministers in the Treasury. We are looking at ensuring that this regulation is future-proof, ensuring that if a Minister is not as reasonable as the one standing here, we can ensure that they are held to making relevant regulation. The clause states:

“The Treasury must make regulations establishing, and maintaining in force, a system which…classifies goods according to their nature, origin or any other factor”.

The Government are asking for this House to give them a significant level of delegated authority. They are asking for us to trust the Government, or any future Government that come after, in relation to making these regulations. In this case they are asking us to trust the Treasury. I think the Government can understand why there may be a lack of trust at the moment, given that we have been promised things that have not been followed through on. It would not be too much to ask to insert the word “relevant” into that clause, so that in future, if we do not have as rational a Minister as this one, we can ensure that they have to make the regulations on the classification of goods on relevant factors, rather than on ones that may be irrelevant.

[Mel Stride]

I reiterate that the Government are not in the business of taking irrelevant factors into account when they make decisions. I give that assurance equally in respect of the Opposition and other parties when they are or have been in government.

The hon. Lady also raises the issue of delegated legislation. At the introduction of the tariff, delegated legislation will be in the form of an affirmative statutory instrument that will be fully considered by a Committee, passed or otherwise by it and agreed to or otherwise by the House. A higher level of delegated legislative scrutiny will also apply to every occasion on which a duty is increased, as opposed to decreased. There is provision in the Bill for a higher level of scrutiny for the introduction of the tariff and for elements of its operation thereafter.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I thank the Minister. I would like to press amendment 104, but not the other two in the group.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

We have had a wide-ranging debate on this group of amendments, much of which covers matters that we will come to later in the Bill. I will focus my remarks on the details of the amendments and the clause.

The hon. Member for Scunthorpe rightly pointed out that I said earlier that the Government’s intention was to ensure that we had a minimum of change in the regime, for the obvious reason of providing familiarity and certainty to businesses. That is an important point and it is why clause 8(5) takes precedent from the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It is very much grounded in where we currently are, as opposed to venturing out to pastures new, some of which would be unfortunate or inappropriate, or so the Opposition would have us believe.

The hon. Member for Oxford East mentioned authorised economic operators, which we will come to in clause 22, to make the general point that a number of things do not appear in the Bill, such as our habitats and various other things in existing EU legislation. On AEOs, the Bill introduces powers in clause 22 that will allow us to address exactly those elements when HMRC and the Treasury come to lay regulations as to, for example, what qualifications there might be to become registered as a certified AEO. Those kinds of issues can be picked up at that time and scrutinised further by the House.

The meat of clause 8 is in subsection (5), which states:

“In considering the rate of import duty that ought to apply to any goods in a standard case, the Treasury must have regard to…(a) the interests of consumers in the United Kingdom”

and

“(b) the desirability of maintaining and promoting the external trade of the United Kingdom”.

It is hard to see how that would not have to take into account the manufacturing element and the health of the manufacturing sector. Subsection (5)(c) states that the Treasury must have regard to

“the desirability of maintaining and promoting productivity in the United Kingdom,”

It is very difficult to see how the manufacturing sector, which represents around 10% of the UK economy, could be entirely ignored or in any sense neglected. Subsection (5)(d) states that the Treasury must have regard to

“the extent to which the goods concerned are subject to competition.”

I suggest that manufacturing would be core to any decisions on the setting of duties made in that context.

Subsection (6) states:

“In considering the rate of import duty that ought to apply to any goods in a standard case, the Treasury must also have regard to any recommendation about the rate made to them by the Secretary of State.”

As the Committee will know, the term “Secretary of State” refers to any Secretary of State in any Department, so on concerns relating to sustainable development, the relevant Department—

[Kirsty Blackman]

Actually, subsection (7) goes on to say that the Secretary of State

“must have regard to the matters set out in subsection (5)(a) to (d)”,

and not to other factors such as sustainable development.

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady has pre-empted my next point. Although subsection (7) does say that, it does not say that the Secretary of State cannot have regard to any other matter—it does not exclude. It would be strange if a Secretary of State was told that they had to have regard to those four aspects when considering an issue and they took that to mean that they could not consider any other aspect. I draw the Committee’s attention to that aspect of the Bill.

On the specific case of sustainable development, we will debate and scrutinise the provisions in the Bill that accommodate setting up our unilateral trade preferences, which are extremely important in the context of sustainable development. On those grounds, I urge the Committee to reject the amendments.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Specifically on what the Minister has said, it is clear from various evidence we have received that the Government have not chosen simply to replicate things such as the Union customs code. In some places they have chosen to replicate it, but in others they have chosen not to. The concern is that the Government’s judgment has not been great in choosing which parts to replicate and which parts not to replicate. The measure has clearly been drafted in a hurry. From the Minister’s argument in relation to what the Secretary of State would have regard to, it is clear that this section of the legislation has not been particularly well thought through.

Opposition Members are not asking for unreasonable things. Having regard to sustainable development is completely reasonable. If the Minister is clear that that will be looked at anyway, or if the Secretary of State decides to get involved in any decision, it does not cost anything to add that into the Bill. If the Minister is clear that the Government will consider the interests of manufacturers because they are integral, it does not cost anything to add that into the Bill. It would be useful and helpful to businesses and would be a nice sign of confidence in businesses. It would be great for the Government to not just talk about increasing productivity, but to say to manufacturers, “We will support you and ensure that your interests are protected.” If the Minister is clear that such things are going to happen anyway, it would not cost the Government anything and they would lose nothing, but it would ensure that people feel more positively about the Bill.

[Mel Stride]

I will be brief because the Committee is anxious to make progress and move on to some important clauses. I will not repeat the earlier comments that I made other than the overarching comment, which is that the provisions in the Bill as drawn are very broad and will pick up on the concerns that the hon. Lady has raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I have previously complained about the composition of Public Bill Committees, given the UK Government’s gerrymandering so that they can have a majority in Bill Committees despite not having a majority in the House. The change would mean that scrutiny would be done effectively, and not just by Committees with a majority of Government representatives who will win every vote by 10 to nine. The amendment is incredibly important and would ensure effective and appropriate scrutiny, and make for better legislation.

[Mel Stride]

Amendment 2 would require the Treasury to consider recommendations made by a relevant Select Committee or a resolution of the House of Commons when considering the rate of import duty that ought to apply in the standard case.

The Treasury will listen closely to recommendations from a range of interested parties, including relevant Select Committees and, of course, Members of the House. In addition, Select Committees already have the power to question Ministers on policy within their departmental remit, and the Treasury will answer any questions from relevant Select Committees. Therefore, the Government believe that it is not necessary to include that in the Bill.

Amendment 3 would place the same obligation on the Treasury when considering what provisions to include in regulations related to quotas, such as determining the rate of import duty applicable to goods that are subject to quotas, and amendment 4 would introduce that requirement when making regulations concerning tariff suspensions. For the same reasons that I set out in relation to amendment 2, the Government do not believe that it is necessary to include such provisions in the Bill.

I have one final point in response to the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North about scrutiny and needing provisions in the Bill. This Bill will, of course, have Report stage, which will be an opportunity for scrutiny by a far wider group than a Committee on which the Government might typically have a majority of one. Every Member of the House will have an opportunity to participate in that debate and consideration of further amendments.

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Kirsty Blackman]

Q Customs and immigration forces were put together in the Border Force. Given the Government’s political priority around immigration, do you feel that there is a resourcing issue with customs staff or do you feel that it is a structural issue and that decoupling customs and immigration would fix that?

Peter MacSwiney: I think there is a structural issue. It is the view, certainly at the airports, that freight is the poor relation where the Border Force is concerned.

Anastassia Beliakova: I would say it is both. It is very difficult to assess within the Border Force how much emphasis is given to goods checks versus checks on people. We have heard from members that it seems as if the focus has definitely shifted over the years. It is therefore an area that would require either a change of focus with more focus to goods, or more people dedicated just on goods checks, from our perspective.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)]

Q First, thank you very much for coming. It has been a really helpful session. I have two questions, which you have two minutes to answer; if you can give me a one-word answer for each one down the line, that would be perfect.

Would you describe HMRC’s engagement with yourselves—your own organisation, in the context of the discussions and the issues we have gone over today—as having been good, average or poor? Starting with Gordon.

Gordon Tutt: Very good.

Peter MacSwiney: I endorse that.

Anastassia Beliakova: Very good.

William Bain: Good, but we need answers on what is going to happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

Q My question is specifically for Barbara Scott on the issue of HMRC resourcing. Is the authorised economic operator system working as it should, and will it work post Brexit? Is there enough focus within Border Force on customs issues, or does that need to change as well?

Barbara Scott: Currently, we have a bit of a divide between HMRC and Customs and how it operates processes such as economic operators, which Border Force does not come online with. No matter what we do to facilitate authorised economic operators—I detest that term—Border Force will still carry out the same controls whether a trade is authorised or not authorised. That really is something that discourages businesses from actually becoming an AEO.

There is a lot of talk about our not having a high number of AEOs in this country. That is because UK Customs has looked at trade facilitation as far as it can, and was quite facilitative to business before we even had an AEO system. For larger traders, there was a lot of facilitation allowed, whereas perhaps some other EU countries, particularly before the UCC, were not so facilitative and have used that AEO process to be more facilitative, which is why traders in, say, Germany have become authorised and in the UK they have not.

The benefits of AEO currently are very small, which is why I was pleased to see within this Bill that there are opportunities for having different levels of AEO. That could be a particular help to small businesses that cannot get over the extremely high bar that exists at the moment. Something that is smaller—a sort of bronze star for SMEs—might be better than the gold star that a multimillion-pound business can afford to obtain.

[Mel Stride]

Q Thank you all for your evidence today, which has been really helpful. I have a specific question for Mr White regarding his assertion, which I generally agree with, that the simplest way forward would be to effectively take the UCC on board, but modify it as required. Is there anything in the Bill that would prevent us from doing that? If your thought is that we should be required to do it, given that we might not be prevented from doing it by the Bill, would bringing it into the Bill not just risk us tying our hands in a way that would be unhelpful, given that we do not know exactly where the negotiations are going to land in that respect?

Jeremy White: Technically, I think you would be safe if you amended the commencement provision. At the moment, the way that it operates on exit day is that the repeal in schedule 7 of the taxation Bill automatically repeals the effect of the withdrawal Bill, which would otherwise preserve the UCC as retained EU direct legislation. You would have to effect the taxation commencement provision. That would have to be amended, so that on exit day it no longer immediately repealed the UCC. Then the withdrawal Bill would operate.

Clearly, we would identify some modifications that are required, some deficiencies, and we would have power under regulations, under the withdrawal Bill, to make regulations amending an unnecessary effect or remedying a deficiency. There would also be power under regulations under the taxation Act itself to make regulations. Those regulations would have to be enforced on exit day.

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Tuesday 16th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mel Stride]

The clause removes certain transitional rules that are no longer required for the effective taxation of carried interest charged to capital gains tax. It amends the legislation that introduced the carried interest rules in the Finance (No. 2) Act 2015. The purpose of the rules is to ensure that where carried interest is subject to CGT treatment, CGT is paid on the full economic award.

Investment fund managers are rewarded in a range of ways for their work. One element of reward is straightforward income in the form of a fee, while another involves what is known as carried interest, which is the portion of the fund’s value allocated to the manager in return for their long-term services to the fund. The manager’s reward is therefore dependent on the performance of the fund. If the carried interest relates to short-term investments, it is rightly charged to income tax and national insurance.

The changes made by clause 37 make the tax system fairer by removing a limited exemption from the carried interest rules. That carve-out applied only to transactions before 8 July 2015 where there was a delay in the carried interest being paid out. By removing this exemption, we clarify and strengthen the policy intention. Furthermore, we prevent attempts to reduce unfairly the tax payable in circumstances not intended by the original legislation. To prevent forestalling, this clause, if passed, will have taken effect from 22 November 2017. It will ensure that carried interest is always subject to the higher rates of CGT on the full economic award.

The clause removes a transitional rule that is no longer required and puts the taxation of carried interest beyond doubt. Asset managers should pay the full rate of capital gains tax on their full economic award if it relates to long-term investments, and I therefore ask that this clause stands part of the Bill.

[Kirsty Blackman]

rose—

[Kirsty Blackman]

Thank you, Sir Roger. New clause 2 is designed to enable us to find out more about the previous effects of this transitional arrangement. The changes that the Government are making to ensure that all carried interest is subject to capital gains tax at the higher rate are reasonable, but I am concerned about the transitional arrangement and its effect on the income of the Exchequer. Would it not have been better for the Government to make the initial change in the first place, rather than having a transition period in which they have received less tax and the disparity between the haves and have-nots—those who are receiving carried interest and those who are not receiving carried interest—has continued because of the transitional relief on carried interest from the higher rate of CGT?

It would be good if the Government told us the impact of the transitional relief on the income of the Exchequer, and therefore on the overall tax take. It would be good if they told us the differential between people who received transitional relief, and normal people who do not receive transitional relief and have probably never even heard of carried interest. It would be good if the Government came back with a bit more information.

We are clearly not opposed to these changes, but we are trying to find out more information and make sure that previous decisions on the matter were sensible. If we have an assessment, we can make better tax law. If we are looking at making changes, we can assess whether transitional relief is really necessary or whether we should move to a fairer system straight away, without the two-year period that has been instituted.

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North for her observations. She says that the principal rationale for a review is to consider whether certain measures might have been brought in earlier and, indeed, whether the original transitional measures should not have been introduced, or should have been done differently. I am not sure that that, in itself, is a strong justification for a review. What matters is that we look closely at how these measures will operate, and I am grateful for her recognition of the fact that our proposed changes are positive in that respect. I assure her that we will closely monitor the operation of the measures and whether any further changes are needed.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38

Online marketplaces

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Thursday 11th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mel Stride]

Clause 22 amends the definition of tariff receipts that are taxable to ring-fence corporation tax and the supplementary charge. Tariff receipts are income that oil companies receive from third parties for the use of their oil and gas assets. It is common for oil and gas producers to share the use of pipelines, terminals and other facilities, and tariffs are one type of commercial arrangement used in those cases.

The clause clarifies the fact that activities by petroleum licence holders in the UK and on the UK continental shelf that give rise to tariff income are oil extraction activities. That ensures that their treatment is in line with current industry practice. As a result of the change, oil and gas companies will have the certainty they need to continue investing in infrastructure. The change will also ensure that the Government can deliver on the Budget 2016 commitment to expand the investment and cluster area allowances so that they can be activated by tariff receipts. Delivering that commitment will encourage more investment in the strategic infrastructure that is crucial to the longevity of our vital national industry.

The Government introduced the investment and cluster area allowances at Budget 2015, simplifying the system for investors and driving new investment. The allowances replaced the complicated system of bespoke oil and gas field allowances. They give oil and gas companies tax relief by reducing the amount of profit that is taxable to the supplementary charge. The allowances are generated on investment expenditure on UK oil and gas assets and can be activated by income from the oilfield. The allowances therefore reward successful investment in UK oil and gas production.

At Budget 2016 the Government went further, announcing that they would expand the scope of the investment and cluster area allowances so that they could be activated by tariff receipts, in addition to the production income from the field. Including tariff receipts within the scope of the investment and cluster area allowances will encourage infrastructure owners to continue investing in the North sea’s vital infrastructure, for the benefit of third parties and to support the “Maximising Economic Recovery” strategy. Before the Government can deliver that commitment, however, it is essential that the current law is consistent with the objective of the policy.

Following an informal consultation with industry and analysis of the legislation, a degree of ambiguity was found in the current legislation, making it difficult to deliver the expansion as intended. The measure will resolve that ambiguity by clarifying that tariff receipts are treated in line with broad industry practice. The Government’s intention to clarify the legislation has been welcomed by the industry.

The changes made by clause 22 will provide oil and gas companies with the right conditions that they need to continue investing in the industry’s infrastructure. The clause amends the existing definition of tariff receipts to confirm that all tariff income earned by UK licence holders is an oil extraction activity, and therefore in the scope of the oil and gas ring fence tax regime. The clause also confirms that for ring fence corporation tax and supplementary charge purposes, there is no distinction between tariff receipts arising from old oilfields that are subject to petroleum revenue tax and new, non-PRT oilfields.

The UK oil and gas industry makes a significant contribution to the UK economy, supporting more than 300,000 jobs and providing about half our primary energy needs. To date, it has paid about £330 billon in production taxes. By clarifying the tax treatment in law for tariff receipts, whether they are generated from new or old oilfields, the clause will allow the Government to deliver their Budget 2016 commitment. That should encourage investment in the UK continental shelf. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I congratulate the Minister on getting through that speech, because the subject of oil and gas taxation is incredibly technical and complicated. As the Minister has said, the clarification is welcome. Also incredibly welcome was the promise in the Budget this year to institute the transferable tax history changes that are required, and I appreciate the fact that that has happened. Industry has been calling for that for a while, as I have done quite a number of times in this room and in the main Chamber.

On “Maximising Economic Recovery”, which the Minister mentioned, it is two years since former Prime Minister David Cameron came to Aberdeen and said that an oil and gas ambassador would be appointed, but we still do not have that ambassador. Will the Minister let us know when we are likely to get the ambassador, or has the idea been shelved permanently?

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Lady for her recognition of the moves that we are making on transferable tax history. I agree that they are important for the sector, particularly given its current state of development. It is important to make sure that we keep the oil industry going in her part of the country. On her question about the oil and gas ambassador, I will make inquiries and come back to her. In terms of industrial strategy, as I mentioned in detail in my opening remarks, her part of the world and the oil and gas sector are extremely important to the Government and will remain so.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23

Hybrid and other mismatches

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

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 11th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)]

The clause freezes the indexation allowance—a relief for inflation—for a company’s chargeable gains for disposals on or after 1 January 2018. It may be useful for the Committee if I set out the background to the clause, although other Members have touched on it, before I turn to amendment 48 and the questions posed by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central.

Removing this outdated allowance supports the UK’s competitive rate of corporation tax by removing a relief that is not available consistently across corporation tax to individuals, as the hon. Member for Bootle pointed out, or in most major comparable economies. In doing so, the Government recognise the importance of being fair and proportionate. As companies may have factored in relief for inflation before the autumn Budget, relief will remain available for inflation before January 2018. However, it will no longer be available from 2018 onwards.

Companies pay tax on the capital gains they make on the disposal of certain assets, such as property. In most circumstances, the capital gain is based on the rise in value of the asset over the period of ownership. Indexation allowance relieves a proportion of that gain from the charge to tax, based on the rise in the retail prices index, during the same period. Companies therefore pay tax only on the gains they make over and above inflation.

The economy and tax system have changed substantially since the allowance was introduced in 1982, when the rate of corporation tax was 52%; inflation in the preceding decade had been in double digits. While I certainly take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point about the current level of inflation owing to the depreciation of the pound and other factors, the Office for Budget Responsibility projects that inflation will peak at 3.1% and tail off towards 2% across the period. While there used to be a rationale for such an allowance, it has become something of an anachronism.

The amount of indexation allowance due is calculated by multiplying the purchase price of the assets by the indexation factor. As I set out, that is currently based on the increase in the retail prices index over the period an asset is owned, from the date it is acquired to the date it is disposed of. Going forward, the allowance will no longer be calculated by reference to the date an asset is sold; instead, it will be calculated by reference to the final month before the relief is removed—in other words, December 2017. That means that, where a company acquired an asset before 2018, relief from inflation will be available from the date the asset was acquired up to December 2017. The indexation allowance will not be available for assets acquired from January 2018 onwards.

I turn to the questions posed by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central. I recognise the points that she makes. While these changes affect corporation tax, they do, in the context of life assurance policies, have potential impacts on individuals and their income net of tax. I do not recognise the large number of 11 million policyholders that she mentioned. I am not sure what the source of that figure was. However, as she requested, I am happy to hear from her, speak to her or have a letter from her on any of the aspects she may have an interest in.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It would be welcome if the Government could offer clarification on the numbers before Report, because that will affect what we do on the clause then.

[Mel Stride]

That is perfectly reasonable. I am sure my officials are listening carefully, and we will ensure that we give a prompt response to the letter, which we await.

Opposition Members have requested a review of the revenue effects of this change. I am happy to say that the revenue forecast for the measure was confirmed by the OBR at the Budget as £30 million in 2017-18; it will raise £1.77 billion over the scorecard period. As per routine procedure, we will keep the measure under review through communication with affected taxpayer groups. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Finance (No. 2) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I look forward to vigorous debate on the Bill, today and in the sittings that will follow, as we take the Bill through the normal process.

The amendments from the hon. Member for Aberdeen South—

[Kirsty Blackman]

North.

[Mel Stride]

North; how could I get that wrong? The amendments would introduce a day for oral evidence sessions, and would extend the period over which we debated the Bill in Committee. I understand why the hon. Lady tabled them, but I am afraid that the Government will resist them, for several reasons, not least because there was a Programming Sub-Committee, at which at least Labour party Members were present, in which we discussed the programme motion, and it was agreed unanimously.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The Government changed the rules because they do not have a majority, so Scottish National party Members no longer have places on Programming Sub-Committees. We were therefore not able to make our case. We opposed that rule change, partly because we want to be on Programming Sub-Committees. If we had had the opportunity to make our case earlier, we would have done so.

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. That is partly why I welcome her having the opportunity to have this debate today, as I said earlier. Let me start with the comment that the hon. Member for Bootle made about the Chair of the Treasury Committee. He urged me to engage with her on this matter, and of course I will do precisely as he asks.

Notwithstanding the fact that we had the opportunity in the Programming Sub-Committee to agree the programme motion or otherwise, several measures already give us a very high level of scrutiny of Finance Bills. We brought in a Government framework in 2010, under which, in a typical cycle, a Budget is followed by policy consultations, and much of the legislation that is to follow is then published in draft. In fact, around 60% of the Bill that we are looking at has been out there for consultation as draft legislation, despite the fact that this has been a rather unique cycle; the hon. Member for Bootle pointed out that this was his third Finance Bill.

These Bills have a very high level of scrutiny. We are moving to the new single fiscal event in the coming year; we will then have even more time to scrutinise Bills, because there will be more breathing space in that process, and obviously we will not have the interruption that we had last year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I thank the Minister for his response. He did not give a reason not to take evidence; he gave the reason why he thinks the status quo is okay. I still have not heard anybody say why evidence would be a bad thing. The Government have previously said that timescales would be an issue, but they are not. As we have a single fiscal event, putting an extra week—an extra day, actually—on to the Finance Bill Committee would not be a problem. Having evidence sessions would be better for the Committee and for the rotating Back Benchers on the Committee—we have people here who have not sat on a Finance Bill before. As I said previously, having an evidence session after the Committee of the whole House is not a problem, because generally we discuss the more technical parts of the Bill after that. What the Minister said about 60% means that 40% of the Bill has not been consulted on.

[Mel Stride]

I need to clarify that point. I said that 60% of the draft legislation was out there and was therefore consulted on. That certainly does not mean that 40% of the Bill was not consulted on, albeit that the legislation was not out there in draft.

[Kirsty Blackman]

In a number of places in the written evidence, various organisations said, “This was not consulted on in draft; we would have suggested these changes, if it had been.” The Committee is losing out because it does not take evidence. It would be better if it did. I do not understand why the Government are scared to take evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

Clause 5 maintains the starting rate limit for savings income at its current level of £5,000 for 2018-19. As members of the Committee will be aware, the starting rate for savings applies to the taxable savings income of individuals with low earned incomes. The Government made significant changes to the starting rate for savings in 2015, lowering the rate from 10% to 0%, as well as extending the band to which it applies from £2,800 to £5,000. This welcome reform has done much to support savers on low incomes by reducing the tax they pay on the income they receive from their savings. Since then, savers have been further supported by the introduction of the personal savings allowance, which offers up to £1,000 of tax-free savings income.

The changes made by clause 5 will maintain the starting rate limit for savings at its current level of £5,000 for 2018-19 tax year. This change is being made to reflect the significant reforms made to support savers over the last couple of years, in addition to the substantial increases in the personal allowance. Most notably, in April 2016, the Government introduced the personal savings allowance, which will remove 18 million taxpayers from paying tax on their savings income in 2018-19. In April 2017, the annual individual savings account allowance increased by the largest ever amount, to £20,000.

[Kirsty Blackman]

It is admirable that the Government are making changes to make it easier for people to save. Would the Minster let us know how many people have begun saving as a result, and how much saving has increased for families? If there are now so many people who are employed, and so many who are using the personal allowance, surely they have loads of extra cash that they are now saving?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

Clause 6 makes changes to allow marriage allowance to be claimed and backdated on behalf of deceased spouses and civil partners. Marriage allowance was introduced in 2015. It allows individuals to transfer 10% of their personal allowance to a spouse or civil partner if they are a basic rate taxpayer. Marriage allowance can currently be claimed and backdated by up to four years if taxpayers meet the qualifying condition. Currently, taxpayers cannot claim after a partner is deceased, even if they may have qualified in the current or previous years since its introduction.

I have heard representations from the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group highlighting the fact that it is unfair that this financial support is not available for people going through a period of considerable distress that accompanies the death of a partner. The changes made by clause 6 will put marriage allowance on a footing with other tax reliefs, where claims can be made by a personal representative after death on behalf of the deceased.

As a result, bereaved partners can now claim on behalf of their spouse or civil partner in the current year and any previous years where they were eligible, up to a maximum of four years. That will enable of thousands of extra people to claim the marriage allowance, worth £230 this year in tax relief, or up to £662 if backdated to its introduction. That will have a negligible cost to the Exchequer.

New clause 3 would include a review in six months’ time of the effects of the costs of the extension of the marriage allowance made by clause 6. It is the Government’s view that there is no need for a formal review of these changes. First, the new clause asks for a review of costs. As I have said, clause 6 is forecast to have a negligible cost, a judgment with which the independent Office for Budget Responsibility was content. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs also publishes the Exchequer cost of the main tax reliefs, including the marriage allowance, on an annual basis. The House will be able to examine the overall change in costs at that time.

Secondly, the new clause calls for a review of the effects of these changes. As the Committee would expect, we keep the effectiveness of the marriage allowance under review. Indeed, the clause was developed in response to concerns raised by the Low Income Tax Reform Group, a sign that the Government are willing to listen when concerns are raised. After six months, it will be too soon to tell how effective the policy has been, so a formal review would be a disproportionate response. I therefore urge the Committee to resist the new clause.

A total of 2.6 million couples have successfully applied for the marriage allowance and thousands more apply each week. That is a tax cut worth more than £400 million to couples on lower incomes. The changes being made by clause 6 mean that thousands more will be able to claim, recognising that bereaved partners going through extremely distressing times deserve all the support that they can get. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The Scottish National party has a long-documented opposition to the married couples allowance, with which we have disagreed for a long time. The change the Minister suggests makes it slightly better and gets rid of one of our concerns, but it remains a tax relief that overwhelmingly benefits men. It remains a tax relief that leaves abused women out in the cold. Because they have to hand over part of the personal allowance, it is difficult for them to go back to work in some circumstances.

It remains a change that benefits only traditional nuclear families, whether people are in a civil partnership or are a heterosexual couple. Only those couples who choose to live together as married benefit. When the measure was first introduced, it was made clear that couples with children were less likely to benefit, because of the working structure that tends to exist with those couples. Apparently, only 15% of those who benefit from the scheme are women; it may even be less.

This issue has been raised by the Women’s Budget Group as one that creates further gender disparity in a society where we are trying to reduce the gender pay gap and make matters better by trying to create a situation where women can more easily go back to work and earn a reasonable amount of money.

The married couples allowance is incredibly flawed. Although this change makes it slightly better, it still has a huge number of problems. We will continue to support new clause 3 and press Government to get rid of the married couples allowance.

Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 8th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

On the subject of the negotiations that the UK is having with countries with which it currently has free trade arrangements because it is part of the EU, and on the rules of origin issue, what discussions has the Minister had about cumulation and about whether the EU will accept UK-EU cumulation, or whether we will be required to have parts made only in the UK?

[Mel Stride]

As the hon. Lady will probably know, those are matters of ongoing discussion within the Department for International Trade, but this Bill and the Trade Bill, which will have its Second Reading tomorrow, are about ensuring that country-of-origin issues can be determined by ourselves under our own laws, rather than having to depend upon on those of the European Union.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman]

It is not actually a raft of new tax bands. As far as I know, it is one more band in the tax system with slightly different numbers for the pennies. But that is only in relation to income tax. Some 70% of people will pay less tax and 55% will pay less tax than they would in England. Does the hon. Gentleman believe, therefore, that the English system is taxing people unfairly compared to the Scottish system?

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Lady for indulging me. She says that 70% of Scottish taxpayers will pay less tax, but will she accept the fact that that is largely due to the changes made by the UK Government in raising the personal allowance?

[Kirsty Blackman]

The Scottish Government’s new starter rate of 19%, rather than 20%, for the first £2,000 that people earn is really positive. It is an incredibly progressive taxation measure, and it is something that the UK Government cannot claim; it is something that the Scottish Government are doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I do, however, want to say one more thing on the Scottish tax system, so I hope he will indulge me.

The Scottish tax system is progressive. It is making a difference by ensuring that people who earn under £24,000 pay less tax. That is a positive measure and a good way forward. If members of the UK Government have concerns about the Scottish Parliament’s choices on tax, perhaps it would be better for them to support an increase in the block grant. They could also tell us whether they would cut the money that is going to be made up from the Scottish Government’s tax changes from education, local authorities or the health service.

I will bring the Committee back to tax avoidance. I am sorry, Sir Roger, for testing your patience slightly. The Scottish National party has been consistent in its criticism of Scottish limited partnerships. My former colleague, Roger Mullin, was like a dog with a bone; he would not let go of this matter. That was to his credit because the UK Government decided to make changes to the SLP regime as they recognised that it is massively used for tax avoidance and dodging. There was a review of SLPs, but we are yet to see changes as a result. Will the Minister let us know at least the timeline for making those changes in order to ensure that SLPs are no longer used as a tax-dodging mechanism? This is an important change that really needs to be made, preferably sooner rather than later.

Talking about the UK Government not working as they should regarding tax avoidance and evasion, the Panama papers and the Paradise papers have both been published in my time as an MP. It is very clear that the tax system—not just the global tax system, but even the system in the UK—is failing. It is allowing people and organisations to dodge tax. It is all well and good to talk about overseas trusts. In fact, this frustrates me a huge amount because the Government try to give the impression that overseas trusts are used by organisations such as rural churches in order to fix their roofs. It is not the case that they are used by organisations like that; they are used by people who are trying to dodge tax. We need the hardest possible line on that.

We cannot see the United Kingdom turn into a low-tax, deregulated tax haven. If the UK Government are deciding what kind of country they want the United Kingdom to be, they should not choose one that involves deregulation. With Brexit, they have the opportunity to put their stamp on the future, but I am incredibly concerned about the way that it will go. In bringing back control, some of the reins that have perhaps been put on the UK Government will be taken off and they will be free, for example, to take away the working time directive, and to make changes to our world-class social security system, fair society and good business practices. That is incredibly concerning.

We have called before, and we will not stop calling, for powers to deal with tax avoidance and evasion to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. We believe that we would do a better job because we could not really do a worse one. We would put forward a fair and moral tax system and a general anti-avoidance rule in order to discourage people from dodging tax, and we would ensure that our tax gap was way smaller than the UK Government’s.

[Mel Stride]

This Government are committed to bearing down on tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance like no other Government in history. While I have enormous respect for the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), the shadow Minister, and I respect the spirited nature of her attack on our record, I am afraid she is misguided.

We have a strong record. We have brought in and protected £160 billion of potentially avoided tax since 2010 as a result of over 100 measures that we have brought in. We have, as we have heard in the debate, one of the lowest tax gaps in the entire world, at just 6%. Contrary to some of the suggestions from those on the Labour Benches, that is a robust and firm figure; it is described by the IMF as one of the most robust in the world. It is, indeed, produced by HMRC, but it is produced to strict guidelines set out by the Office for National Statistics.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 11th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

Yes, my hon. Friend is entirely right. We have made huge progress in making sure that the banks are fit and able to withstand whatever external shocks there might be. The Bank of England has been heavily engaged in that, as have the Government, and we are in a much more secure position—certainly than we were when we inherited the economy we saw when we first came to office in 2010.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

The Minister is being very generous in allowing interventions. I was concerned by the response he gave to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). Given the Government’s stake in RBS, does he not feel that they should take some responsibility and use their influence to convince RBS not to go ahead with these closures? There have been over 90 since the start of the year, and this cannot continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I was not particularly pleased with the answer that the Minister gave to the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) as to why the Government have not tabled an amendment of the law resolution, which would allow the Opposition to put forward more measures in relation to tax avoidance and evasion, for example. Why did they not put forward an amendment of the law resolution?

[Mel Stride]

We did not have an amendment of the law resolution on the previous Finance Bill, so we are carrying on with the situation that pertained to that Bill. As I explained, what matters is that we have an opportunity fully to scrutinise in this House the various measures provided and amendments that may be tabled in relation to those measures. There is nothing preventing that. As I have outlined, the Bill will go through its various stages, allowing for very thorough scrutiny.

Together, the measures that I mentioned continue the Government’s sustained crusade against tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance—an endeavour that we will pursue with undiminished vigour right through the course of this Parliament. Let no one ever doubt, for even the briefest moment, this Government’s commitment to hard-pressed families, and to championing business and the wealth creators of the future. On the matter of taxation as set out in the Bill, let no one misunderstand us: we will continue to keep taxes competitive and fair, but we will also continue our vigorous and ceaseless drive to bear down on avoidance and evasion so that all pay their due. We will ensure that all pay a just and fair share for the support of our vital public services: for doctors, paramedics and nurses; for our police, our teachers, our fire services, and our brave armed forces who make our country so great. I commend the Bill to the House.

Finance Bill

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend rightly raises one of the approaches that could be deployed to ensure that VAT is paid: the split payment system, whereby the platform itself is responsible for collecting the VAT and passing it on. That is certainly something, along with other measures, that we are considering.

It has been a pleasure debating this group of amendments. I hope that hon. Members are satisfied on the points we have discussed and I urge the House to reject the amendments and new clauses tabled by Opposition Members.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I think we are all slightly bamboozled by the order in which this part of the debate has happened. None the less, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak.

We have raised concerns about Making Tax Digital and we will carry on doing so because we have issues with the way in which some of these things are being implemented. I appreciate the fact that in Committee the Minister took the time to answer questions about lack of internet access. I am still not 100% clear about the position for those people who have only intermittent access to the internet. I understand what he was saying about those people being able to make a case to HMRC about why they cannot, through the Making Tax Digital scheme, do quarterly reporting. However, I am still not convinced that the language on that was robust enough to protect any of my constituents who, because of their internet connection, are unable, for example, to reasonably undertake the quarterly reporting that is being asked of them. If he is able to come back on that and clarify the position, I will be grateful. The point he made in Committee was useful, but possibly not strong enough in that regard.

The other issues we have about Making Tax Digital concern those people who are in particularly rural areas and who therefore struggle with lack of access to technology and the internet and with doing the quarterly reporting. There are also people who do not have access to HMRC offices in the way they used to. We have raised all those concerns. I have said that I am pleased that the Government have changed the way and the order in which the implementation is going to happen. The SNP is not against Making Tax Digital and quarterly reporting, but we have concerns and we want to ensure that our constituents and businesses in our constituency are protected.

On that note, we said in our manifesto this year that we would support the phased introduction of Making Tax Digital. I want to be clear that we will not, therefore, support Labour’s amendment 11, which is the tack that we also took in Committee. We would not want to vote against something that is a manifesto commitment.

New clause 2 is on commercial property and non-doms. The statements that I made earlier about the issue of non-doms and about the concerns regarding the complexity of the tax code and possible loopholes in relation to that, apply exactly in this regard. I am pleased that the new clause has been tabled by the Labour party, including the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), I think. I say that quietly in the hope that I have got the constituency right. I am pleased that this has been put forward. Constituents have got in touch with me and several of my colleagues about this. The Scottish National party has previously raised concerns about the taxation of non-domiciles, and we will continue to do so, in particular around some of the loopholes. We will support new clause 2—many of the constituents who wrote to me will be delighted about that—and I am pleased that this matter is on the table and being debated today.

Finance Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Mel Stride]

If I may, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on the specific questions that he has raised about the consultation on these measures.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44

Petroleum revenue tax: elections for oil fields to become non-taxable

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

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is welcome that the Government are looking to reduce the administrative burden in relation to elections for oilfields to become non-taxable. That is positive news. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has mentioned in two Budgets that there will be changes in the taxation system to make it easier for late-life assets to be transferred. I have heard noises from the Chancellor in recent times that he may not introduce that in the autumn statement this year, and I will just make this pitch to the Minister. This issue is incredibly important. The oil and gas industry is not asking at this moment for significant changes, but for the change in relation to the transfer of late-life assets. I would very much appreciate it if, in the context of reducing the administrative burden and making things easier for companies dealing with the very mature field in the North sea, the Minister would hear my case on that and make the case to the Chancellor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I agree. In Kingswells in my constituency, which is a large suburb of Scotland’s third city, there are significant issues about access to fast broadband. There is access to slow broadband, and it is sometimes intermittent, for reasons to do with historical infrastructure. Broadband companies were put on the grid to begin with and they now find it more difficult to upgrade the historical technology. I appreciate the point that the hon. Lady has made; it is important to note that for some people intermittent access can be as difficult as no access.

The third category of businesses we have chosen is those likely to be affected by the closure of HMRC offices. I have needed to do tax returns online only since I became an MP. The problem with some of the questions is that yes or no are the options but my answer has been “maybe” or “kind of”. Despite the fact that the online form was fairly clear, I needed to phone someone to get some advice on whether to tick yes or no. If businesses lack advice and information from HMRC about the correct option to choose in some cases, it will be more difficult for them to fill out the forms.

It is important that businesses should be given the advice, information and support they need to fill in the forms correctly online. I am sure that no businesses will be trying to make errors; they will be looking for advice. My concern, particularly regarding HMRC offices, is the lack of access to advice that people might have.

[Mel Stride]

The important point is that, for many years, people have not simply been walking into or getting an appointment at their local HMRC office. The fact that we are drawing offices together into 13 beefed-up regional centres is particularly important in the context of telephone advice, which the hon. Lady is alluding to and which will still very much be available for exactly the circumstances she describes.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I appreciate the Minister’s point. In an earlier sitting, he mentioned the positive timelines when people phone HMRC for advice; apparently the phone is answered very quickly. I get that he says the statistics show that, but people are walking into my surgeries and into my constituency office saying that they have tried for hours to phone HMRC and have really struggled to get through. Despite him saying that the statistics show one thing, the lived experience of my constituents is very different. That is why I have these concerns, and even if one person or a handful of people cannot get through on the phone and fill in their form on time because they are not able to answer the question, it is a concern. I implore the Minister to continue working on call times and to ensure that, when people phone, they get through as quickly as possible and that the calls are answered, and that the advice provided is correct so that people can make the correct choice, particularly with online forms.

Labour Members have tabled a number of amendments to the clause. We were clear in the SNP manifesto that we supported a phased move to digital reporting, so what the Minister has proposed is now much more in line with what we were thinking. I ask that Labour Members, in speaking to the amendments, explain why they chose 2022, and I will make a call after that on whether we think supporting them is relevant. One Labour amendment suggests that we should not move towards digital reporting, which would be a concern for us because our manifesto commitment was positive about digital reporting. I look forward to hearing the comments from the Opposition and the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady overlooks the fact that it is often possible for those who wish to complain to do so anonymously through their trade union or other representatives. That is what happens in many cases. HMRC does not have to rely on a specific complaint to conduct an investigation. It may have suspicions of its own for a variety of reasons. I do not think that we are in a position where people are unable to come forward, as she suggests.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North has tabled two amendments that seek to review the impact of MTD on specific groups. I recognise her concerns, but the Government have been clear from the outset that businesses that are unable to go digital will not be required to do so.

If you will indulge me, Mr Howarth, it is worth looking at some of the detail of the Bill at this point. The hon. Lady has raised a very important point about potential digital exclusion. Clause 60 covers exemptions, as I am sure she is aware. New sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 14 of schedule A1 states:

“The digital exclusion condition is met”—

for those who would not be required to put in their returns digitally—

“in relation to a person or partner if…for any reason (including age, disability or location)”—

the hon. Lady rightly raised rural localities—

“it is not reasonably practicable”—

that is not the same as completely impossible—

“for the person or partner to use electronic communications or to keep electronic records”.

I think that is a well-crafted clause to catch the kind of circumstances about which the hon. Lady and I are concerned.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The concern raised by the hon. Member for High Peak was about intermittency. The issue is not about people who do not have access to the internet at all, but those who have only intermittent access. The clause may not be lenient enough for them to make a case for not having digital access. Does the Minister have a view on that?

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Lady for her further point. I guess it comes down to interpretation. It seems to me that if it is not reasonably practical for a person or company to use electronic communications, the reliability of the service—another way of describing the point she raised—would be an important part of the judgment that would be made.

The clause continues with “Further exemptions”. Proposed new paragraph 15(1) states:

“The Commissioners may by regulations make provision for further exemptions.”

New paragraph 15(1) states:

“The exemptions for which provision may be made include exemptions based on income or other financial criteria.”

There is therefore a recognition in the Bill that not only do we need to get it right for the current circumstances, but we need the flexibility to be ready for any circumstances that might present themselves and which we have not considered at this stage. Those would need to be addressed further down the line.

For those who can go digital but require additional assistance, HMRC will continue to provide a diverse range of digital support, including webinars, helplines and YouTube videos, to help them meet the requirements of making tax digital.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North also seeks to provide for a phased implementation period, with the commencement of each new stage requiring approval by the House. We have already revised the implementation to start with businesses that report quarterly, and stakeholders are operating on the basis of the new timeline. We are phasing in the implementation by piloting the changes and by starting with mandation only for VAT and those above the VAT threshold. The secondary legislation required to lay out the detailed operation of MTD will be laid before the House in due course, offering Members a further opportunity to scrutinise our plans and consider our proposals.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow has tabled an amendment to require HMRC to publish an assessment of the effect of our exit from the European Union on MTD for VAT for small businesses. HMRC wants to give businesses plenty of time to adapt to MTD and is allowing for a full year of piloting the changes before mandation applies and before the UK leaves the European Union. If businesses wish to begin keeping their records digitally before we leave the EU, they will be able to do so.

The hon. Lady raised specific issues in respect of VAT and the 13th directive. The Government do not consider there to be an MTD issue here. MTD is about how records are kept and reported, rather than the nature of the VAT regime itself. The regulations will be consistent with the requirements of the 13th VAT directive, but if she has specific concerns, HMRC will be happy to look into them.

Finance Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 19th October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I promise that I will stick to the topic of the debate. For the avoidance of doubt, we will support the Opposition’s new clause 3. I heard what the Minister said about previous family structures, but that does not give us enough reassurance that the system that is being set up for overseas trusts is the correct one.

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Lady for making her intentions so clear.

These changes are fair, and they have been carefully considered and consulted on since they were announced more than two years ago. With regard to a review of the legislation, as stated in the tax information and impact note published in December 2016, HMRC will monitor the effects of the provisions through information collected in tax returns. I therefore urge the Opposition not to press new clause 3.

The changes introduced by clauses 29 to 32 and schedules 8 and 9 will bring an end to permanent non-domicile tax status. When people live in the UK permanently, it is right that they should pay the same tax as everyone else. This is the biggest and most fundamental change to non-dom taxation in history, and strikes the right balance between raising £1.6 billion of much-needed revenue and ensuring that the UK tax system remains internationally competitive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

Before I respond to the amendment tabled by Labour Members, I would like to set out for members of the Committee the overall aims as they relate to this particular piece of legislation.

Clauses 40, 41 and 42 make changes to ensure that the tax system works effectively for investors in co-ownership authorised contractual schemes, which I will refer to as COACS for short. COACS are UK collective investment schemes authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority. They were introduced in 2013 to make the asset management industry more competitive internationally, to reduce industry costs and to increase returns to investors. These schemes are transparent for tax on income. That means that the income generated by the scheme is taxed on the investors, not on the scheme. Investors are taxed as if they had invested directly rather than through the scheme.

COACS have been welcomed by investors, which are predominantly institutions such as pension funds and life insurance companies. Following consultation last year, the Government are now making three changes to simplify the tax rules for investors in COACS and to align them with rules for other types of investment funds so far as is practical.

Amendment 32 would require HMRC to complete a review of the operation of COACS by early 2019. I reassure the hon. Member for Oxford East that the Government have consulted extensively on the measure. There was a formal consultation in summer 2016, in which the industry participated fully and constructively. The consultation process also included a well-attended open forum of interested parties in September 2016 to investigate and evaluate options. In addition, the Government have held regular discussions with industry representatives. It was in those discussions that the issue that clause 40 seeks to address was first highlighted. The Government will continue to engage with the sector on COACS and the practical implementation of the rules governing the schemes.

The hon. Lady referred to master funds, which are a fund structure where a fund has a number of separate feeder funds as its investors. They were not the subject of any response to the consultation, but HMRC stands ready to engage further with industry, should it have any questions related to COACS and master funds. The hon. Lady suggested that there may be a possible means of tax avoidance here. Income accruing to a master fund that is a co-ownership authorised contractual scheme is treated as the income of the investors, so UK investors cannot avoid tax on it. Clause 42 and its related secondary legislation will help to protect revenue. The measure as a whole is robust against potential tax avoidance, but HMRC will of course continue to be vigilant.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The Minister has been positive about the transference of accountability with COACS. I want to raise a query. Will he confirm that the changes being made will not erode the transparency and accountability of the scheme as it is? Will that be kept under review ?

[Mel Stride]

Absolutely. All these matters will be kept under review. It is not the Government’s belief that the changes will erode the scheme; we believe that the changes will facilitate and ease the operation of these particular schemes to the advantage of pension funds and others that typically make use of them.

In the light of the extensive consultation held and the Government’s continuing commitment to work with industry on the implementation of rules governing COACS, I hope that the hon. Member for Oxford East will withdraw the amendment.

I turn now to the background to the clauses. COACS are not subject to tax, but the operators of the schemes hold information needed by investors to complete their own tax returns and to claim any capital allowances to which they are entitled. The calculation of capital allowances falls in practice on the investors and can be extremely complex. In addition, operators hold information that would help HMRC to check that investors’ tax returns are accurate, but at the moment there is no statutory requirement for COACS to provide tax information to either investors or HMRC. That is one example of the easements, from the investors’ and HMRC’s point of view, that the hon. Member for Oxford East may be interested in. Further, where a COACS holds investments in offshore funds, the rules that normally apply to ensure that offshore income is taxed appropriately on UK investors do not work as they should.

Clause 40 introduces new rules that allow the operator of a COACS to elect to calculate any capital allowances due, benefiting investors by avoiding the need to exchange large amounts of information with the operator of the COACS. The election can be made for periods that start on or after 1 April 2017. Clause 41 enables the Treasury to make regulations that will do three things to help to ensure that the right tax is paid on investments in COACS. First, the regulations will require the operator of a COACS to provide sufficient information to investors for them to complete their own tax returns. Secondly, they will require the operator to provide information to HMRC about the income arising to investors each year, and provide HMRC with a power to request copies of any other information provided to investors. Thirdly, they will impose penalties if scheme operators do not comply.

Clause 42 enables the Treasury to make regulations that will require a COACS that has invested in an offshore fund to ensure that all of the offshore fund’s income is treated as its investors’ income, regardless of whether it is actually distributed to them. This removes the risk of income rolling up offshore without being taxed as it arises. It also brings the treatment of investors in COACS into line with the treatment of UK investors in offshore funds generally.

These targeted measures will help to ensure that the tax system works efficiently for investors in COACS, and that they pay the right tax on their investments. I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw the amendment, and that clauses 40, 41 and 42 will stand part of the Bill unamended.

Finance Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Committee Debate: 2nd Sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I do not want to speak for long, but I wanted to say that the hon. Member for Oxford East made a comprehensive, passionate and well-informed case on the amendment. If the Labour party seeks to press the amendment to a vote, we will support it. If the Minister responds to any of the comments by letter, I would be keen to see some of his answers, so I would appreciate being copied into that response.

[Mel Stride]

Compared with typical companies, social enterprises face greater difficulties in accessing the funding they need to grow and develop. Social investment tax relief provides a number of generous tax reliefs to encourage individuals to invest in social enterprises that deliver social or community benefits. The current limit to the amount of investment that a social enterprise can receive through SITR is around £300,000 over three years. We announced in 2014 that we would look to expand the scheme, and we are now doing so.

The changes made by schedule 1 will increase the investment limit to £1.5 million over the lifetime of all social enterprises using SITR. In order to target the relief more effectively at the social enterprises that most struggle to attract investment, those under seven years old will no longer be bound by the three-year rolling investment limit of £300,000. I think this addresses the issues raised by the hon. Member for Oxford East about why the period is seven years. There is a greater vulnerability when social enterprises start up and they are fresh and young. They have yet to have a track record on which they can build, in order to grow. For those we are removing the roaming £300,000 over three years requirement. Social enterprises older than seven years can still use SITR for investment up to the three-year rolling investment limit of £300,000, subject to the lifetime limit of £1.5 million.

Schedule 1 makes a number of other changes to ensure that the scheme is well targeted at activities that will genuinely achieve socially beneficial aims, and provides value for money. That includes targeting SITR at social enterprises with fewer than 250 employees. Some activities have always been excluded from the relief so that it is not used as a tax-advantage route for low-risk investment. The excluded activities list will be updated to exclude a number of low-risk activities, including leasing assets and raising finance to lend on to others.

I agreed wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Oxford East’s assertion about the importance of these social enterprises. She mentioned Aspire, for example, in her own constituency and many of us can think of similar organisations in our constituencies. On the more detailed process points that she was interested in, particularly around HMRC and advanced assurances, I am happy to write to her.

On the specific issue of leasing, allowing those activities to benefit from SITR would risk diverting finance away from higher risk social enterprises. We must not lose sight of the fact that the whole purpose of this scheme is to encourage those kinds of organisations and all the good works that they do, which might not otherwise come forward for the reason of being high risk. Of course, those organisations struggle the most to raise finance. Leasing assets typically provides a reliable income stream, which makes it a lower risk activity. Allowing social enterprises to raise money to lend on to other enterprises would be complex to administer and would leave the scheme open to misuse.

Finance Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Committee Debate: 1st Sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Kirsty Blackman]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, which highlights the issue. It would be useful to hear from the Minister about why £500 has been chosen, given that a £100,000 pension pot is not the biggest of pension pots and some people will have more in their pension pot than that. We need to hear from the Minister the reasons behind choosing that figure. It would also be useful to hear about how this might affect those women caught up in and disadvantaged by the Government’s changes to the state pension age, particularly those who have not been told about these changes.

[Mel Stride]

I welcome the hon. Member for Bootle and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North to the Committee and the part that they will play in the debates that lie ahead.

Before I respond to some of the detailed points raised, including the amendments, I will set out the purpose of clause 3. As we have heard, the clause introduces a new income tax exemption to the cover the first £500-worth of pensions advice provided to an employee in a tax year. That will increase the affordability and accessibility of financial advice for those saving for retirement through a workplace pension.

The success of the Government’s auto-enrolment policy means that more people than ever are saving into a workplace pension scheme, as the hon. Lady recognised. There has been quite a change to the general territory of pensions. On top of this, the Government’s historic pension flexibility reforms have given people better access to their retirement savings and control over their money, but with more money and more options, individuals may have a greater need for professional financial advice.

The recent financial advice market review conducted by HM Treasury and the Financial Conduct Authority concluded that there is a particular advice gap in relation to pensions. The Government are keen to ensure that financial advice is accessible and affordable to consumers, especially those nearing retirement. We want to encourage employers to provide advice to their employees to help them to make informed choices about what to do with their pension savings.

As I said, the changes made by the clause will introduce a new tax exemption to cover the first £500-worth of advice in a tax year. It will apply to advice provided to an employee on pensions savings, and on the general financial and tax issues relating to pensions. The exemption applies whether the employer pays or reimburses the employee for the cost of that advice.

Amendment 14 would double the tax exemption to cover the first £1,000-worth of pensions advice provided to an employee in a tax year. We believe that £500 is an appropriate amount. As the hon. Member for Bootle pointed out, that more than triples the current exemption. It also balances the cost to the Exchequer with the objective of encouraging more employers to provide access for their employees to affordable advice. Increasing the tax exemption to cover the first £1,000 also risks inflating the market and making advice too expensive for employers and employees. I can report that we are already seeing the emergence of new forms of tailored advice at a more accessible price of about £500.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about consultation. We have not formally consulted on the changes. As he pointed out, the matter was covered by the financial advice market review consultation, which received 268 responses. Respondents supported the introduction of tax measures to help consumers to afford financial advice. A wide range of stakeholders responded, including employers, individuals and financial services firms. The FAMR also conducted regional roundtables and sought the views of an advisory panel of industry and consumer experts. Consultation on the measure has been deep and meaningful.

On the question whether £500 is the correct amount, as I have explained, this is a tripling of the amount hitherto available. In addition, each employer can utilise the £500 exemption, so an employee who works for two companies may be provided advice by each and benefit from two allocations of the exemption. Although advice can be more expensive, the Government expect more affordable advice propositions to be launched as a direct result of the FAMR. For example, in May 2016 the Financial Conduct Authority launched its advice unit, which will provide regulatory support to firms developing cheaper, automated advice propositions.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the important issue of protections against pension fraud. The important point to bear in mind is that this measure covers all formats of pensions advice, as long as the advice is regulated financial advice delivered by an FCA-authorised adviser. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

The Minister said the effectiveness of the provisions will be kept under review. Will he commit to ensuring that the review is published at some point?

[Mel Stride]

As I said, the FAMR body will be conducting a review, which is expected to be published in 2019, and the Government will keep those matters under review on an ongoing basis, as we do all measures of taxation, whether impositions or reliefs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I hear the hon. Lady’s words, but I would probably go even further. We do not agree that the change should be made to the dividend nil rate for a number of reasons. To begin with, those people who are self-employed may have been planning their self-employment for some time and may have been relying on the fact that the dividend nil rate is currently £5,000 in their financial planning. I do not think that there is enough notice for those people who have been making plans to become self-employed. It is not good enough from the Government. There is not enough notice, and the change they are making is pretty rubbish. People on pretty low incomes are going to be hit by some of the change. It is really important that, for example, people who are becoming self-employed for the first time have the nil rate allowance that they thought they were going to have. Those people have not been given enough time to make considerations.

The point raised by the hon. Lady in relation to getting through to HMRC is relevant, particularly given the closures of tax offices and the difficulty that my constituents are having when trying to contact HMRC. The guidance and forms on its website tend to be black and white, but the answer might be somewhere grey in the middle, so people have to phone to get the advice they need to fill in the form online appropriately. As I said, one of our concerns about the general movement towards making tax digital is how people can get advice on filling in online forms, never mind anything else. It is difficult for people to get through to HMRC, and that is a relevant consideration. We are inclined to vote against clause stand part when that comes. However, we would support the amendment, were it to be pressed to a vote.

[Mel Stride]

Before I respond to the amendment as well as the other points raised in the debate, let me first remind the Committee of what the clause seeks to achieve. As we have heard, it reduces the tax-free dividend allowance from £5,000 to £2,000 from April 2018. The change will ensure that support for investors is more effectively targeted and helps to deliver a fairer and more sustainable tax system. It will also help to reduce the tax differential between individuals working through their own company and those working as employees and self-employed. Crucially, it raises revenue to invest in our public services, raising approximately £2.6 billion out to 2021-22.

Since the tax-free dividend allowance was first announced, the landscape for small business owners, savers and investors has changed. The hon. Member for Oxford East specifically asked about support for businesses in the context of these changes. I can assure her that, as the party of business, we are wholeheartedly behind businesses. First, we have supported businesses by reducing the main corporation tax rate to 19%, which is now the lowest rate in the G20. Secondly, for savers, we have increased the amount of money that an individual can save or invest tax-free through an ISA, by the largest amount ever, to £20,000, nearly doubling the limit since 2010. Thirdly, we have continued to increase the personal allowance to £11,500 this April. We have committed to increasing it further, to £12,500, helping individuals keep more of the money that they earn.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North raised a specific point about response rates from HMRC to telephone contact. That is one of the measures that we are constantly looking at—how good are customer services—and I reassure her that it is one measure where HMRC performance has been relatively strong recently.

The clause should be considered in the context of that wider support for business and the need to deliver a tax system that works for everyone. We also need to take account of the ongoing trends in the different ways in which people are working. The design of the current tax system means that individuals who work through a company can pay significantly less tax than individuals who are self-employed or who work as employees. That can be true even when those individuals are doing very similar work.

At the autumn statement last year, the Office for Budget Responsibility estimated that the faster growth of new incorporations, compared with the growth of employment, would reduce tax receipts by an additional £3.5 billion in 2021-22. By that year, HMRC estimated that the cost to the public finances of the existing company population will be more than £6 billion.

The Government are committed to helping all businesses to succeed, large and small, and in all parts of the United Kingdom, but to deliver and maintain low taxes for everyone, we need a tax base that is sustainable. The cost to the public finances of the growth in incorporation is clearly not sustainable. It is, therefore, right to make the small but sensible change to reduce some of the distortions to which I have referred.

As we have heard from the hon. Member for Oxford East, amendment 18 would commit HMRC to undertake a formal review of the effect of this change to the dividend nil rate by the end of June 2019. It has been specifically proposed that such a review should consider in particular the effect of the change on the self-employed. Such a formal review is not necessary.

As I have mentioned, the change needs to be considered in the context of the wider support that the Government have provided to business owners all across the United Kingdom, from reducing the rate of corporation tax to giving the self-employed the same access to the state pension as employees, worth almost £1,900 more per year, to introducing successive increases to the personal allowance, which is available in addition to the dividend allowance.

Indeed, the Government have given careful consideration to the impact of reducing the dividend allowance. A £2,000 allowance ensures that support is more effectively targeted following this change. Around 65% of all recipients of dividend income will continue to pay no tax on such income. That includes around 80% of all general investors. Typically, a general investor will still be able to invest around £50,000 without paying any tax on the resulting dividend income. Those investors who are affected will have, on average, investments worth around £100,000, which will put them in the top 10% of wealthiest households in the country. I therefore invite the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

The Government are delivering a tax system that works for everyone, including businesses, savers and investors. As the OBR has highlighted, there is a rising and unsustainable cost to the public finances of the growth in incorporation. The clause would help to address that by reducing the tax differential between those who work for a company structure and pay themselves in dividends and those who work as employees or self-employed, while ensuring that support for investors is more effectively targeted. I, therefore, urge the hon. Lady to withdraw amendment 18, while I commend clause 8 to the Committee.

Finance Bill

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 11th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

This is one of the most generous thresholds in the world. In fact, there is no threshold at all in Germany and the United States of America, because none of these payments is treated as being tax-exempt.

Such categorisation means that payments qualify for the £30,000 tax exemption and an unlimited employer national insurance contributions exemption. The situation is clearly unfair for the vast majority of employees, who are unable to manipulate their payments in this way. Clause 5 makes changes to prevent such manipulation in the future, while still ensuring that the vast majority pay no income tax on their payment. The first £30,000 of all termination payments will remain exempt from tax.

The hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) made a general point about the Conservative party’s treatment of workers, and I make no apologies for the way this Government have stood up for workers up and down our country. We are committed to enhancing workers’ rights. We introduced the national living wage, and we doubled fines for firms that break the rules in that respect. We appointed the first director of labour market enforcement, and we are committed, as we have constantly said, and as our Prime Minister has made clear, to protecting workers’ rights as we leave the European Union.

Nearly 85% of payments are below £30,000, so retaining the threshold will ensure that the vast majority of people going through the difficult experience of being made redundant will still pay no tax whatever. That means that the UK continues to have one of the most generous tax exemptions for termination payments, and I have mentioned Germany and the United States having no tax exemption at all.

Clause 5 tightens the tax rules for termination payments to prevent manipulation—a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) in an excellent contribution. He highlighted our overall record on bringing in taxes where attempts are made to avoid tax, and I referred to the £160 billion raised since 2010. He referred to our being at the forefront of the OECD base erosion and profit shifting project, and we have also brought in the diverted profits tax to clamp down on the kind of behaviour he referred to.

Let us not lose sight of the purpose of bringing in tax, which is to raise public finances so that we can employ doctors, nurses, paramedics, police and soldiers and pay for all those great public services that all of us hold so dear. That is why I am so proud of this Government’s record on clamping down on tax avoidance more generally.

The Office of Tax Simplification has said:

“the well-advised can often end up better off than the unadvised, as they are more able to structure their employment contract (or, indeed, their termination payment) to achieve the better tax treatment.”

The hon. Member for Bootle said in this House only last month:

“If there is genuine evidence of the abuse of payments in lieu of notice, that needs to be acted on”—[Official Report, 6 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 206.]

It is fair to say that, while the hon. Gentleman is a very amiable fellow, he is not right about everything, but on this point he is actually very right. This clause is to deal with the very abuse about which he has previously expressed concern. We will prevent employers from categorising large pay-offs as tax-free payments, rather than earnings. Instead, employers will now be required to tax what the employee would have earned if they had worked their notice period in full. All payments in lieu of notice will now also be taxable as earnings to equalise the treatment of those with and without a contractual right to such a payment.

Finally, clause 5 clarifies that there is a total tax exemption for payments on account of injury or disability of an employee. In 2014, the Office of Tax Simplification raised the possibility of removing this exemption. It recognised that that would be a draconian approach, but it noted that interpretation is

“often a problem area for employers and their advisers.”

However, we have not pursued that approach. Instead, we have provided certainty by confirming the current position established by case law in statute. The total exemption relates to termination payments provided on account of a physical or psychiatric injury that prevents the employee from carrying on the duties of the employment, which hopefully addresses the point raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman). Therefore, employees with evidence of an identified medical condition will pay no tax on related termination payments.

Some Members raised concerns in previous debates that the Government would be taxing compensation paid to employees where it is proven that they have been discriminated against. Once again, I am happy to reassure them. All compensation for awards for proven discrimination during work will continue to remain completely exempt from tax. There was an interesting interaction between my hon. Friend the Member for Reddich (Rachel Maclean) and the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) on this point. We accept that, where there is a tribunal award in respect of injury to feelings, it is treated in exactly the same way as when an employer accepts that discrimination has actually occurred. All the clause seeks is to confirm the long-standing position that genuine compensation payments are tax exempt, while ensuring there is no loophole that can be used to reduce the tax that is owed.

Let me now turn to the amendments. As the hon. Member for Bootle set out, amendment 1 would remove the power to amend the meaning of basic pay for the purposes of calculating post-employment notice pay by regulation. When we consulted on this measure, we listened to responses that asked us to make the basic pay definition more simple. It now excludes overtime, bonuses, commission and tips. However, we introduced this power to allow the Government to act quickly and to remain flexible if there is manipulation in the future. Any amendment to the meaning of basic pay would be subject to a statutory instrument under the affirmative procedure, so the House would have to expressly approve any change to the meaning. I therefore urge the House to resist the amendment.

Amendment 2 and consequential amendment 3, also tabled by the Labour party, would remove the power to reduce the £30,000 threshold by regulation. Some Members have raised concerns during the debate that the Government intend to reduce this tax-free amount. We have no intention to do so. If we were to do so, we would, as my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) pointed out in his excellent speech, be required to do so by an affirmative statutory instrument. However, I repeat that we have no intention of reducing this tax-free amount. I therefore urge the House to resist the amendment.

Amendment 4 would include injured feelings within the definition of injury. As I outlined earlier, clause 5 confirms that termination payments provided on account of physical or psychiatric injury will be completely tax exempt—an important point raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. However, the clause also confirms the established position that injury to feelings is not covered by this definition. The reason for this restriction is clear: without it, there would be a large loophole—as identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree and my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean—allowing payments to be routinely reclassified on account of injury to feelings, and without medical evidence, simply in order for people to pay no tax. These things are hard to prove or disprove, and would be difficult for HMRC to police. However, it remains the case that payments on account of an injury to feelings, like any normal termination payment, will qualify for the £30,000 tax exemption. I therefore likewise urge the House to resist the amendment.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The Minister is concerned that some people might be exploiting a loophole, but as a result he has decided to disadvantage everybody who is subject to termination as a result of injury to feelings, rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt, which seems pretty unfair to me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

Clause 15 expands the scope of the business investment relief scheme because it supports economic growth and investment by encouraging foreign individuals to invest in UK businesses. Business investment relief was introduced in April 2012 and is aimed at individuals who are taxed on the remittance basis. As Members will be aware, a remittance basis taxpayer is subject to UK tax on their overseas income or gains only if they bring them to the UK. That can discourage them from bringing their overseas money into the country, even when doing so would benefit the UK economy by investing in UK business. The business investment relief scheme seeks to address this by allowing those who are taxed on the remittance basis to bring their income and gains to the UK without incurring a tax charge, provided those funds are invested in a qualifying UK business. In other words, the scheme enables overseas funds that would otherwise remain outside the UK to be invested in UK businesses.

The independent Office for Budget Responsibility has confirmed in the costings that, without this scheme, this money would simply be left offshore, and so the UK would not benefit from it. Any UK gains and income arising from the investment will be fully taxable in the UK. It is worth noting that elsewhere in the Finance Bill—contrary to the views expressed by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous)—the Government have introduced the most fundamental change to non-dom taxation in history, ending permanent non-dom status. That is more than the Labour party managed the last time it was in government. This clause supports these wider reforms by ensuring that the UK remains attractive to those people who want to live here and use their foreign income and gains to invest in Britain.

Clause 15 expands the types of businesses in which investment can be made. The new rules widen the relief so that it can be used to purchase existing shares, not just new shares. The changes also lengthen the time before a new start-up company has to become a trading business from two to five years. That will enable investment in large infrastructure projects, which can take a long time to complete. Finally, clause 15 updates the anti-avoidance rules to ensure that genuine investment is not discouraged.

Let me turn to the amendment and new clause tabled by the Scottish National party. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) outlined, amendment 13 and new clause 3 would delay the commencement of these provisions until the Government had laid before the House a review of the efficacy of the conditions for BIR. I can be clear that the Government are confident of the effectiveness of this scheme. Investment using BIR increased from £197 million in 2012-13 to £837 million in 2014-15. In only three years, that has meant total investments of more than £1.6 billion in our economy since the scheme was first introduced.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I would very much appreciate it if the Treasury would commit to publishing that information and details of the sectors in which the money has been invested. If it does that, we will all be much happier, across the House.

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I will come on to deal with the information that the Treasury is already publishing, which is very comprehensive.

As I was saying, that includes investment in the hospitality and energy sectors, and in many different types of businesses, including small and medium-sized ones. It includes investment in manufacturing and pharmaceutical science businesses in the midlands and north of England, and a £3 million investment in aerospace businesses in the north-west of England. As I outlined earlier, the independent OBR has certified that these changes do not have any cost to the Exchequer. In other words, this is money coming to this country which would not otherwise have done so. I am sure that these are investments in our country that the whole House wants to see—investment in British businesses right across the country. I therefore urge Members to reject new clause 3 and amendment 13.

Let me also address new clause 1, tabled by the official Opposition. In a similar vein to new clause 3, it would require the Government to review the conditions under which BIR is available, including estimates of the value of the relief and an analysis of the characteristics of those using it. Such a review is wholly unnecessary, as Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs publishes much of this information already. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) pointed out, in August HMRC published official statistics on non-domiciled taxpayers in the UK, which includes a commentary document and tables. This publication contains statistics on the number of individuals who are non-domiciled, and on the total income tax, capital gains tax and national insurance contributions of the non-domiciled population. Moreover, it includes information on the current number of investments and the amount invested in the UK by non-domiciled individuals using business investment relief.

To provide the report, HMRC uses information provided by taxpayers through the self-assessment process. It is impossible to determine from an individual’s tax return whether or not they have characteristics that are protected under the Equality Act. HMRC does not have the capacity or the resource to acquire such information, so it would be unduly burdensome to place on HMRC a statutory obligation that it would be incapable of meeting. For those reasons, I urge Members to reject the new clause.

Finance Bill

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mel Stride

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman]

I thank my colleague for that intervention, and I note that the Minister is paying attention.

[Mel Stride]

I think it is the case that that statutory instrument has been laid today, but in the event that it has not, I will chase it up.