All 1 Lord Kerr of Kinlochard contributions to the Finance Act 2017

Read Bill Ministerial Extracts

Wed 26th Apr 2017
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Lords Chamber

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords

Finance (No. 2) Bill Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: HM Treasury

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts
2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 26th April 2017

(7 years, 7 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Finance Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 25 April 2017 - (25 Apr 2017)
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Portrait Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I rise briefly in the gap to congratulate the Minister on her magisterial exegesis of what is still 148 pages and a dozen schedules. However, her reference to the plan to proceed—in due course after the election if returned—with the proposals for making tax digital slightly worries me.

I think everybody would agree that making tax digital for business is a good idea. However, both the Treasury Committee in the other place under the leadership of the admirable Mr Tyrie and your Lordships’ Economic Affairs Committee under the leadership of the admirable noble Lord, Lord Hollick, made rather serious criticisms of some of the details of the proposals. They are very big proposals. If the 780 pages were in front of us today, we would be debating a proposal that 2.5 million self-employed people, 1.5 million companies and 1 million landlords, even if their annual turnover was as low as £10,000, should be required to go online and make their tax returns quarterly—every three months—not annually. That would be for all these companies, including very small ones.

Both committees support the principle but your Lordships’ committee recommended that this should be phased in and made optional for small companies and the Treasury Committee in the other place proposed that the threshold should be raised to be in line with that for VAT. That seems reasonable to me. I hope that, back in the Treasury and in the Revenue, people will not be idle in the next few weeks and months, and will take careful account of the reports from the two committees. Both support the principle that the Government propose to follow but find serious fault with some of the details of implementation and particularly phasing.