Finance Bill

Mike Kane Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s concern. The lack of transparency from the Government about the interest in the scheme is why we tabled the new clause. It has been difficult to get information about the scheme’s potential take-up—how many businesses have expressed an interest? It has taken a freedom of information request to get even the most basic information, which I will outline a little later.

I should like to quote Justin King, chief executive of Sainsbury’s. What he says relates poignantly to the interventions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra):

“This is not something for our business. The population at large don’t trust business. What do you think the population at large will think of businesses that want to trade employment rights for money?”

I could not have expressed it better myself.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the measure lacks basic human dignity, which should be at the forefront of all public policy legislation? Does she agree with Lord O’Donnell, the former head of the civil service, who said that it was a form of modern slavery?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The proposition risks ringing of that. It lacks an ethical approach, given that it trades people’s rights for £2,000 of shares. More than that, it flies in the face of what we know to be true about productivity and engagement. We know that engaging a work force and building their trust makes businesses more successful. Sarah Jackson, chief executive of Working Families, says:

“It also flies in the face of everything we know about productivity and employee engagement. Treat your employees well, give them the flexibility they need, and you will be rewarded by highly motivated and high performing employees.”

The proposal we are discussing goes in completely the opposite direction, undermining the rights of employees and buying them off with shares that could carry a lot of risk for them. It is no wonder that so few businesses have taken up the offer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend speaks from great experience and is, as usual, exactly on the point. For many small business people, the biggest constraint is time: they have to be the sales person, the accountant, the HR person and the form filler. The policy that has given rise to new clause 11 is supposed to be helping those people, but I think there are many other ways we can support our small businesses that would have a greater impact.

One of those is that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills should lose its great focus on a grand industrial policy, centred on our large corporations, and start to show a bit of passion about our small businesses. I know that the Secretary of State is a good friend of the Treasury Bench—obviously, he is a member of it—but somehow we are not getting the focus and heart for our small businesses that we should be getting, and it would be good to hear that voice coming through louder and clearer.

I am drawn by Opposition Members’ eloquence on the questions they are raising about this policy. It did not occur to me at the start of our support for the policy that it was going to be a big policy that would have an impact on many businesses. I would be interested to hear an update from the Minister on where the policy is taking us and what our goals are when it comes to promoting employee shareholding. What are his concerns? Does he share my concern that, in trying to put together promotion of employee shareholding and reductions in employee rights, we may be failing to make progress on two issues, rather than making progress on both?

[Mike Kane]

It is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), who spoke with such authority about his work now and previously with small businesses. It was a pleasure to serve with him on the Finance Bill Committee, where generally he spoke loyally from the Government Benches on his party’s agenda, even though he disagrees slightly with the policy before the House now. It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), who spoke articulately and ably, using his experience as a former trade union official.

I believe that shares for rights as it has been proposed lacks common human dignity. We know that the main purpose of Government is to protect individuals, communities and their property from exploitation and harm; Government must also provide a stable economic, social and legal framework for businesses and economies to thrive. The proposal does not do that. As I mentioned earlier, Lord O’Donnell described shares for rights as a form of modern-day slavery. It creates a two-tier market and a two-tier work force—one part having sold its rights and the other retaining them. I think that that is wrong for our economy.

The policy was announced with great fanfare in 2013, but the shares for rights scheme cannot be described as anything other than a massive flop. It is also proving to be another bone of contention in our fractured coalition. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), and the Secretary of State are nowhere to be seen near the proposal. The real problem, though, as the Chancellor has found, is that it has been impossible to get employer organisations to back the scheme. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) said, according to the most recent information we have—hopefully, the Minister will update us—there were 19 expressions of interest by December last year. The Office for Budget Responsibility says it could be used as a tax dodge, costing us—the Treasury—nearly £1 billion a year. In this age of austerity, that is the last type of policy we need to be introducing.

Ministers seek to introduce the scheme without proper discussion, and without proper consultation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn said, and have proceeded in what can only be described as a very chaotic way. Following the publication of the details of the scheme, a Government source was quoted as saying that the scheme was on “life support”, but Ministers still went ahead. As was mentioned earlier, John Cridland, director-general of the CBI, said that this was a niche idea that businesses really do not want. There is unanimity among people who really care about employers and their rights and those Opposition Members who believe that employees should also be shareholders and work hard in their small and medium-sized enterprises, where most employees now reside.

[Chris Evans]

Does my hon. Friend think it is just a coincidence that the vast majority of the FTSE 100 companies also find themselves in the list of the top 100 best places to work in the UK, and they have not rolled back employment rights in any way and have successful share save schemes, as I mentioned earlier?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

The best organisations offer benefits in kind, which can be shares to their employees. I and many in the House have no problem with that.

This measure is wrong for business and wrong for employee-business relations, and I urge all hon. Members to support the new clause.

[Ian Murray]

I apologise to the House for not being present at the beginning of the debate. The previous debate finished slightly earlier so there was a clash with something else that I had in my diary. However, I want to make a few comments on this because it harks back to new clause 14, which we debated earlier. All we are looking for in new clause 11 is some transparency on this policy. We know it was introduced with great fanfare by the Chancellor at the Conservative party conference last October when he said:

“Workers of the world unite.”

The conclusion to the workers of the world uniting was that everyone united against this policy.

This is incredibly relevant to the Finance Bill because it has created a significant tax loophole. On new clause 14 on the 50p tax rate and the need for transparency on how much tax that takes, the Government said clearly that 45p brings in more tax at the top rate than 50p, which brings in less because of tax avoidance. In this case, we are looking at the biggest tax avoidance measure we can get. It has been described by the Institute of Fiscal Studies as a billion-pound tax lollipop on the table. If we are serious about tackling such tax avoidance, it would be great for transparency, not just for the House but for the country, if a report were produced showing take up and the consequences of that.

Because it is such an important prospect, we need to look at what the Chancellor tried to do in his conference speech. We will end up in the situation where people are able to sell their rights for a few pounds that might be worth nothing. That is not the kind of working society that we want. It is not the kind of partnership that we want between employers and employees and trade unions, whereby people can sell their rights for maternity pay, unfair dismissal, and all those rights referred to by Beecroft in his report for the Prime Minister. We now have a fire-at-will culture, which does nothing to dispel the Government’s move towards a hire-and-fire culture with this proposal. There are the hallmarks of another tax avoidance scheme. Why on earth would we want to produce a scheme that not only allows people to sell their rights and not be covered by any employment rights, but to be in a situation whereby those at the top end of businesses can use these mechanisms to avoid paying tax? I hope that the Minister can address some of those serious concerns when he replies.

I cannot understand why the Government would not accept new clause 11 if they are so confident that this measure will be well used, resulting in a transformation in entrepreneurship, with people hiring more and more employees because they do not have what the Government would call the burden of employee relations. Why would they not want to produce a report showing how many people are using the measure? I do not understand why they do not want to produce a report showing the impact on the Treasury coffers, through capital gains tax and any other tax receipts that might be lost.

It is important for the Government to have confidence in their proposals. The Chancellor was confident when he announced it with great fanfare. I am not sure whether it will have any take-up, because of the way it has been presented and the message it sends out. Justin King, the former chief executive of Sainsbury’s, said that it sends out a poor message. Many chief executives and business owners say that it sends out such a poor message on the partnership we want in the workplace.

Therefore, if the Government wish to have confidence in their own policies, it is only right that they agree to new clause 11, bring forward the report setting out the take-up and the data collected on the scheme and publish further reports every year. If the scheme is denying people their rights at work at the same time as denying the Treasury valuable income, this House should know about it and be able to debate it so that it can hold the Government properly to account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

A recent report by Felix Behling and Mark Harvey, “The Evasion Economy,” estimates that in the construction industry alone, 400,000 people are bogusly self-employed.

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the findings of that report and we know that this is a real problem, particularly for people in the construction industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Mills]

I will not vote for new clause 12, and I will briefly explain why.

A year ago, we enacted the general anti-abuse rule. One argument that Mr Aaronson made when he reviewed that idea was that it would allow us to have fewer of these complicated, focused anti-avoidance rules in Finance Bills and to avoid cluttering up the tax regime with more complexity because we would be able to rely on the general rule. I look forward to seeing that, rather than another huge, thick Finance Bill next year.

Subsection (1) of new clause 12 speaks of

“tax arrangements that are abusive.”

Surely those come within the general anti-abuse rule and can therefore be challenged, even if they are technically legal. Given that, we will not need to come back and assess the three items that are set out, because they will already have been tackled and there will be no further revenue to raise.

I racked my brains and did a bit of googling to try to find methods of tax avoidance using dormant companies. I struggled to think of one, because once a dormant company does something, it ceases to be dormant and therefore cannot be used to avoid tax. If what is meant is that companies are pretending to be dormant, but are actually active and are not filing returns that they know full well are due, that is tax evasion and should be clobbered severely using the existing rules. We probably do not need to create a huge compliance burden for every innocent dormant company out there. There might be sensible reasons for maintaining those companies, such as to protect a name or previous transactions, or simply that the cost and hassle of striking them off are greater than they ought to be. That would be an unreasonable compliance burden to impose.

We should be a bit careful about the language that we use about eurobonds. I have some sympathy with the view that when they were created 40 or 50 years ago and the exemption was passed, Parliament probably did not intend for intra-group loans to be traded randomly on Channel Island stock exchanges but never actually traded, just held by the same third party throughout the period. I see the temptation to remove the exemption and it was right that the Government proposed some sensible ways of doing so two years ago. However, if the Government consult on something and look into the detail, but then decide that it would not raise as much money as they thought and that it would act as a big disincentive to investment, it is unwise to come back to it so quickly. We should learn the lessons from that and just accept that if we want the UK to be attractive to investment and the hub of the private equity industry, which many small businesses in all our constituencies benefit from, it is foolish to risk putting up the cost of borrowing for that industry and adding complexity for it by revising the rules again.

I think that the new clause is superfluous and I will not vote for it.

[Mike Kane]

In the few moments that I have, I want to point out that self-employment is being used by far too many employers to engage workers in the construction industry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) pointed out. According to the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians report “The Evasion Economy”, 400,000 workers are being engaged in that way. Those workers miss out on the rights that normal workers get. According to another UCATT report, “The Great Payroll Scandal”, this practice is costing the Exchequer up to £1.9 billion per annum.

When I talked to construction workers on Friday night, they spoke of the scandal of payroll companies making millions of pounds. This is a legitimised dodgy practice. The companies get workers to sign a contract to say that they are self-employed, but they work for a single employer. In any legal sense, their status would be defined as a direct employee, yet they lose all the rights that we have spoken about. It should no longer be possible for companies to instruct such construction workers to turn up on site when they want them. Construction workers need the security of employment rights and full national insurance contributions should be paid.

[Mr Gauke]

We have had a lively debate, and I will try to address as many of the points raised as possible in the time available.

New clause 12 seeks to have the Government produce a report on how to reduce the tax advantages arising from tax arrangements that are abusive. I agree that tax avoidance is a key issue, and the Government have made it abundantly clear that we will not stand for a minority of taxpayers continuing to seek unacceptable ways to reduce the amount of tax they pay through contrived and artificial means. That increases the tax burden on the rest of society and creates an unfair playing field for businesses.

Let me explain why I do not think that a report would be beneficial. The Government have taken strong and robust action to tackle avoidance. Since 2010 we have introduced 42 changes to tax law to close avoidance loopholes and make strategic changes to prevent and deter tax avoidance. Those measures include the introduction of a general anti-abuse rule, strengthening the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes regime, clamping down on stamp duty land tax avoidance with a new range of measures —including an annual tax on envelope dwellings—and numerous changes to business tax rules and reliefs to tackle bad behaviour, including misuse of the partnership structure and corporate loss buying.

We are going further. In the Finance Bill we are introducing new measures to put in place tougher monitoring regimes and penalties for high-risk promoters of tax avoidance schemes, and we are introducing accelerated payments and follower notice measures that will give HMRC the power to collect disputed tax bills up front, putting those who try to avoid tax on the same footing as the vast majority who pay all their tax up front.

Let me address the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) and the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty). The vast majority of people pay their tax up front, but it is possible for people working through self-assessment to make use of a tax avoidance scheme and hold on to the money during the—often lengthy—period where there is a dispute. The law is the law, however, and it is the law that existed when the arrangements were made that continues to apply. We are making a change, however, to say that while there is a dispute, the money should be held by the Exchequer and not the taxpayer, just as happens in many other circumstances where there is a dispute in our tax system. This is money that the individual would have already paid if they had not entered into an avoidance scheme. When completing their self-assessment return, they would have notified HMRC that they were taking part in a tax avoidance scheme under the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes regime, and as I said, the taxpayer can continue to dispute the case and will be paid interest should they win. The rights of the individual are therefore not being restricted. Prudent taxpayers should recognise that tax avoidance carries a significant risk of not working and the tax becoming payable, and they should make plans for such an outcome.

In addition to changes in law, we have invested £1 billion in increasing HMRC’s compliance resource, which has reaped huge benefits. HMRC is ever more successful at tackling the avoidance it sees, and it has an excellent record in litigating the avoidance schemes that taxpayers choose to take to tribunal. It wins about 80% of cases, and persuades many more taxpayers to settle before the case gets that far. Between April 2010 and March 2014, it won 94 avoidances cases in tribunals and courts, and in 2013-14 alone, its 30 wins protected £2.7 billion of tax.

The Government will continue to close loopholes in tax law and introduce strategic responses to tax avoidance across the tax system. We will act robustly to respond to abuses that we see. We consult on those measures where we can, although hon. Members will understand that in certain circumstances we must act quickly to close down abuse, so consultation is not possible. A report will add nothing to the progress that we have made and continue to make. Action is more important. We have proved we are taking action to tackle tax avoidance across the board, and we will continue to do so.

In the time available I do not think I can do justice to the fairly lengthy speech on eurobonds by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), but the £500 million figure that she quoted, which is somehow supposed to be at risk, seems to be based on an article in a newspaper. It is not a figure we recognise. It wrongly assumes that the recipient of the interest would not be entitled to gross payment of interest and fails to take into account the fact that under the UK’s double tax treaties the tax would often be repaid anyway.

I extend again the offer that I made in March to the hon. Lady. I have been a shadow Treasury Minister and I recognise the challenges in developing policy in these areas without access to officials. I would be more than happy to meet her, with officials, to talk through some of the practical points of this issue. I think she will find that that £500 million is something of an illusion. In terms of the practical points that she raised about changing the withholding tax system, I ask her to bear in mind the double taxation treaties. Her proposals might not be as easy as she believes.

The alleged abuse of disguised employment in the construction sector is an important point. Some labour providers have created structures specifically designed to avoid tax and national insurance and gain a commercial advantage over those who play by the rules. The Government aim to put a stop to those practices in the construction sector and elsewhere through the new measures introduced in this Bill to tackle false self-employment intermediaries. They will provide a level playing field for compliant labour providers who help to facilitate the UK’s flexible labour market.

The new measures that we are introducing target structures set up to present workers as self-employed when they are really employees. This has been a growing problem in recent years and has spread from the construction industry to other sectors. That is not acceptable. Workers lose out on their rights, it creates competitive disadvantages for compliant businesses, and ultimately the taxpayer foots the bill. That is why we are acting now to stop the abuse. Intermediaries are the biggest mechanism for delivering false self-employment within the construction industry, and as I have said, the practice is spreading. Tackling employment intermediaries used to facilitate false self-employment will not only more effectively target a sizeable section of the false self-employment in construction—a point raised by the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane)—but will stop the spread of the problem to the wider economy.

We believe our proposals are the best way to tackle avoidance in that area. The previous Government consulted on proposals to tackle false self-employment in construction in 2009, which deemed all construction workers to be employed unless they fulfilled one of three criteria. In practice, that would have meant that bricklayers would need to provide their own bricks and roofers would have had to supply their own tiles to be categorised as self-employed. As set out in the consultation response document, analysis suggested that the proposals could undermine legitimate commercial practice and run the risk of capturing genuinely self-employed individuals.

A dormant company is one that is not within the charge to corporation tax at all, whereas the new clause appears to relate to companies that are within the charge but fail to file returns. That is not avoidance but evasion. HMRC uses risk-based procedures and extensive data-matching analysis to identify companies that should have filed returns but have not done so. All such companies are risk-assessed to establish whether they come within the charge to tax. Research suggests that the risk of tax loss is small. HMRC’s activity is carefully targeted, ensuring administrative burdens for compliant customers are minimised while focusing on the non-compliant.

I draw the House’s attention once more to the Government’s strong response to the threat of tax avoidance, including our unprecedented action to close loopholes and provide new tools for HMRC to tackle avoidance. The report proposed by the Opposition is unnecessary and would distract HMRC from delivering on its important work tackling avoidance. I call on the hon. Lady to withdraw the new clause.