Ways and Means

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Wednesday 6th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I noted the Minister’s comment that there is no change in policy. From that statement it is clear that the Government have learned absolutely nothing from the result of the general election, which is a terrible shame. The Opposition welcome the Government finally laying before the House the Ways and Means resolutions, which will comprise the so-called “summer” Finance Bill, but the clue is supposed to be in the name. I find it rather odd, as I am sure many of my parliamentary colleagues do, that we stand here in early September debating a summer Finance Bill that was expected to be introduced and passed before the summer recess. Alas, it was not.

I recall the Minister’s predecessor standing at the Dispatch Box only four and a half months ago assuring the House that if the Government were returned, they would immediately bring forward measures dropped from the previous Finance Bill due to lack of parliamentary time. However, they have an excuse for the procrastination: it is called chaos. We have a chaotic Government, chaotically stumbling from crisis to crisis, not knowing one part of their anatomy from another. After the election, we returned to a zombie Parliament where little in the way of business was put forward to be debated in the House. Mr Speaker referred today to the whole question of the scrutiny that we are supposed to be doing, but the Government are not putting anything forward for us to scrutinise.

Not only is the Prime Minister one of the walking dead, but she wants Parliament to join her. On a number of occasions, my colleagues and I wrote to the Treasury to ascertain the date for the Finance Bill. In addition, the issue was raised twice in business questions and the Chancellor was asked about it in Treasury questions, all to no avail and no answer. It was the fifth amendment approach to answering questions. It was only in the waning hours, as Members packed up before the House rose for summer recess, that the Government were forced to publish the date for the Bill’s return.

I know the Treasury lost two Ministers in the election—to rework Oscar Wilde’s observation, losing one Minister is a misfortune, but to lose both looks like carelessness—but surely the country cannot simply hang around because the Government are in meltdown. The Government are making an art form out of uncertainty. We have uncertainty about Brexit, uncertainty about the country’s finances, as the resolutions indicate, and now uncertainty about the Prime Minister’s job prospects. The only certainty we have is the inability of this vacuous, hapless Government to govern with any scintilla of competence or compassion.

The Government had five weeks after the general election to introduce measures dropped from the previous Finance Bill and bring certainty to taxpayers and businesses. Many of those businesses have already undertaken the administrative and financial burden of ensuring that they meet the stipulations of the measures included in the Ways and Means resolutions being debated today. The Minister could have brought forward the resolutions and published the Bill before the House rose for summer recess. That would have allowed Members and the businesses and taxpayers affected time to read through the proposals and examine them thoroughly. Instead, the Government have cynically restricted the debate by scheduling the Second Reading of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill for tomorrow.

Next week, the Minister intends to push ahead with the Second Reading of the Finance Bill only four days after its publication, with the explanatory notes being published on the day of Second Reading. Once again, the Chancellor and the Treasury are deliberately shying away from the parliamentary scrutiny that we should be having on these resolutions. This is a time of great political and economic uncertainty, and the measures included in the resolutions do little to address the problems at hand. The global economy is on the move, while Britain under the Tories is being left behind. The resolutions are defined more by what is not in them than what is. There is nothing about investment, nothing about productivity and nothing about public services—much ado about nothing.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the shadow Minister give the House his view on the points made by his Back-Bench colleague the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) on the landfill tax question?

[Peter Dowd]

I would not proffer advice to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, because he is an expert on that issue, but I will listen clearly to what he says. Unlike the Government, I listen to my colleagues on the Back Benches.

We need only look across the channel to see that every European economy outgrew Britain in the GDP figures for the first quarter. Our productivity rate remains one of the worst in the G7 and is lower than it was 10 years ago. Real wages continue to fall behind inflation. More than ever, we need bold and radical solutions to stimulate growth, raise productivity and encourage investment in our economy. None of the resolutions before us will do that. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury has made that point. Rather than focusing on balancing the budget or tackling our growing debt to GDP ratio, we have a Chancellor who spent the summer in the witness protection programme, rearing his head only to brief against his boss when the coast was clear and the Prime Minister was abroad.

The measures before the House represent the Government’s failure to take the opportunity to begin seriously to tackle the challenges that our economy and country face. For example, it is clear that the Tories have no answers on how to raise productivity and no answers on how to tackle the growing inequality in pay. We are now experiencing the longest period of wage stagnation for 150 years, with nurses having to demonstrate in Parliament Square to make their point. The Tories have no answers when it comes to creating an economy that works for the many and not just for a privileged few.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman’s former noble friend Lord Sugar, who knows a little about productivity and running a business, poured a huge amount of cold water on the prospectus that the Labour party put before the electorate a few months ago, which was clearly rejected by the largest number of businesses and business owners. Rather than the vaudeville that the hon. Gentleman seems to be going on about—it is like the Labour party conference speech that he might give, if he is given a platform—why does he not address the issues before the House?

[Peter Dowd]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that businesses are coming to Labour because of the mess that the Conservative party is making of Brexit.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Name them.

[Peter Dowd]

I can name them.

None of the measures before the House address the growing black hole in the public finances, which is the direct result of the Government’s mismanagement and economic incompetence. As things stand, there is a £3 billion black hole in the public finances, made up of the Chancellor’s U-turn on the proposed increases to class 4 national insurance contributions for the self-employed on low and middle incomes; the unlawful employment tribunal fees the Government have been forced to repay; and, yes, the £1 billion bung to the Democratic Unionist party to buy its silence and compliance. Nor do the Government acknowledge the added cost to the taxpayer of delaying the implementation date for “Making Tax Digital”, which they were warned was problematic by all and sundry.

Make no mistake: this is no ordinary Finance Bill we are talking about. If passed, a number of its measures will create a charter championing tax avoidance and leaving billions of pounds of tax uncollected. Using smokescreens and false titles, the Treasury has hidden to the unsuspecting eye giant loopholes for offshore trusts in complicated tax measures. While claiming to end non-domicile status, the Chancellor is at the same time encouraging people to bend the rules and siphon off money overseas into tax haven trusts. He has excluded from one of the Bill’s key deeming measures non-doms who have inherited their status. The Government are on the side of tax dodgers, not taxpayers.

There is nothing in the measures before the House that will address the resource crisis that HMRC is facing as the Government plan to cut £83 million from its budget, along with the debacle that is its 10-year modernisation programme.

[Rachel Maclean]

Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman just said, the Government have raised more than £9 billion from non-doms. Those funds contribute to the Exchequer, enable us to fund public services and raise the country’s productivity rate.

[Peter Dowd]

The reality is that the Tories support tax dodgers. Full stop.

Several of the measures before the House will create even more work for the falling number of people employed by HMRC and put further strain on them. The Government’s actions will ensure that many of the so-called anti-avoidance measures trumpeted by the Minister will fail before they even begin.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

My hon. Friend has just touched on how the Minister is going to implement these measures, which is what I asked about earlier. He will probably know that the Government are closing tax offices throughout the country, with a reduction in staff as a result. How can they honestly say they are going to implement legislation to go after tax dodgers?

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The proposals for reorganisation will do nothing to help that—they are in a chaotic state.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

I urge caution on the hon. Gentleman before he throws around wild accusations about the Government supporting tax dodgers. For what it is worth, in my previous life I used to prosecute massive tax fraudsters. I am very happy with the fact that I have helped fraud prosecutors to put a lot of nasty people into prison, so I take great offence at the hon. Gentleman’s attempt to cast all Conservative MPs in that way. The best way to deal with tax evasion and tax dodging is not to throw empty words across the Chamber but to work with the Government to reduce and stop something that we all want to see the end of: tax dodgers not paying their dues.

[Peter Dowd]

I hope the hon. Lady will be busier in her job.

I find it baffling that, at a time when the Government are introducing some of the most complex plans to make tax digital, and while there is so much uncertainty about how taxation and customs will work post-Brexit, they are choosing to fire HMRC staff rather than hire them. To put it simply, were the Government truly serious about wanting to close the tax gap, which costs the UK taxpayer a minimum of £36 billion every year, they would give it the resources it so desperately needs. Given the thousands of accountants and lawyers across the world whose sole occupation is to advise and enable tax avoidance, it will never be a fair fight.

The sieve-like measures on non-doms which I have mentioned are perforated even further by the plan to loosen the rules on business investment relief. That measure will allow non-doms to remit funds into the UK without paying the usual taxes. There is little evidence that such relief has been effective in encouraging greater investment in business, so expanding it is only a giveaway to non-doms. If any of us wish to invest, we have to pay the appropriate taxes. There should not be different rules for a privileged few, which maintains the Government’s view that the UK can only ever be attractive as a tax haven. The Government’s race to the bottom begins in earnest and enthusiastically.

[Steve McCabe]

On business investment relief, it was suggested a moment ago that we should work with the Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that they should publish details of which companies and businesses benefit from such investment, and what part of the country they are located in? That way, we will be able to see whether there is anything to work with.

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend makes a good point; I hope the Government will listen carefully to what he says and, more importantly, act on it.

The devolution of corporation tax rates to Northern Ireland has been debated in the Chamber many times, and we do not seek to reopen the debate. Nevertheless, we have not debated and will not welcome the clear attempts by the Government to loosen the definition of a Northern Irish employer and water down the requirements for claiming the lower corporation tax rate in Northern Ireland. Under the measure before us, corporations would effectively use Northern Ireland as an onshore tax haven. They would set up small offices with a brass plate on the door, but bring in little of the real investment and jobs that Northern Ireland needs.

We see special treatment for corporations and non-doms, but the news is less good for workers at risk of losing their jobs. The proposed measures on termination payments, if they reflect what was before the House before the election, will target sacked workers as a source of revenue. If there is genuine evidence of the abuse of payments in lieu of notice, that needs to be acted on, but the Government have tacked on a power for the Treasury to reduce the tax exemption on termination payments without primary legislation. That would be a U-turn on their previous statements about dropping such plans. If there is no intention to use the power to reduce the exemption, then the measures should be amended so that it can only be uprated, not reduced. The Government also heartlessly want to enshrine the taxable status of “injury to feelings” compensation. Even when that reflects HMRC’s practice, why is it seen as a priority for legislation?

So there we have it: these motions will introduce a summer Finance Bill that stretches the meaning of summer and will leave taxpayers and businesses with months of uncertainty. It is a Bill that will do nothing seriously to tackle tax avoidance, with the Government claiming to take on non-doms while in the same breath legislating to protect the offshore trusts; a Bill that fails to address the growing black hole and the Conservatives’ mismanagement of our public finances; and a Bill that will protect the privileged few while doing nothing for the many.

This is a dark, miserable, barren winter Finance Bill with a wrathful nipping cold. We have waited a whole season for these resolutions, and they only reaffirm what we already knew: that the country can wait no longer for this disastrous and divided Conservative Government to step aside and make way for a Labour Government who will invest to grow our economy, balance our public finances and take on the tax dodgers—which the Conservatives won’t do.

Finance Bill

Peter Dowd Excerpts

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

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 1, page 12, leave out lines 8 to 12.

This amendment removes the power for the Treasury to amend the meaning of “basic pay” for the purposes of calculating “post-employment notice pay” by regulations.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 12, page 13, line 27, at end insert—

“402F  Review of impact of termination payments on low income workers

(1) Within two months of Royal Assent being given to the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017, the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall commission a review of the impact of the provisions of sections 402A to 402E on low income workers.

(2) A report of this review must be laid before the House of Commons before the start of the tax year 2018–19.”

This amendment requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry out a review of how the changes to termination payments will affect low income workers before these provisions come into effect.

Amendment 2, page 14, line 15, leave out “different” and insert “higher”.

This amendment removes the power for the Treasury to reduce the £30,000 threshold in connection with the taxation of termination payments by regulations.

Amendment 3, page 14, leave out lines 20 to 23.

This amendment is consequential upon Amendment 2.

Amendment 4, page 14, leave out lines 27 and 28 and insert—

‘(2) “Injury” in subsection (1) includes—

(a) psychiatric injury, and

(b) injured feelings.””

This amendment explicitly includes (rather than excludes) injured feelings within the definition of “injury” for the purposes of payments which are excluded from the provisions of Chapter 3 of Part 6 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (payments and benefits on termination of employment).

Clause stand part.

[Peter Dowd]

To be fired from a job is perhaps one of the most difficult experiences for an employee. There are very few people in this Chamber, let alone in the country, who have never had to go through the awkward, bitterly disappointing and scary experience of losing, or potentially losing, a job. This is the daily reality for thousands of people, and it goes to the heart of clause 5.

I ask the Committee to imagine how thousands of people across the country at BAE are feeling at this moment after yesterday’s announcement of job losses. How are those workers feeling in Warton, Samlesbury, Portsmouth, Guildford and RAF Leeming, and in the Chief Secretary’s own county of Norfolk at RAF Marham? Added to the worry, concern, anxiety and hopelessness of redundancy now comes a potential tax bill to pay for the Government’s hapless management of the economy. Will the writ of clause 5 stretch across the Irish sea? What about the threat to the jobs of those at Bombardier in Northern Ireland, and the thousands of other associated jobs over there?

[Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman rightly points out the devastating consequences for people who lose their jobs—he refers to particular instances at the moment—but does he also recognise that this Government have created 3 million more jobs, which is helping our economy and those people?

[Peter Dowd]

This is not relevant to the debate, but a significant number of those jobs are incredibly low paid, and people have not had pay rises for many years. What the hon. and learned Lady says might well be the case, but the reality is that it is not about the quantity; it is about the quality—[Interruption.] Of course it is.

How insensitive and out of touch must this Government be to put clause 5 before Members today of all days? The Prime Minister has vowed that she will do anything and everything she can to help those affected at Bombardier and BAE, so perhaps the Minister would like to withdraw this provision here and now and put the Prime Minister’s warm words into action.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the concerns that those workers will be facing, but he knows perfectly well that the Government’s proposals in this Bill are designed to deal with abuse. He knows that there are no plans to change the rules in a way that would affect people on lower incomes who are not doing anything wrong, and the Minister made that clear on Second Reading. The hon. Gentleman’s scaremongering is making the concerns of those workers worse, rather than reassuring them, which is what he ought to be doing in this House of Commons.

[Peter Dowd]

The only people who are scaremongering are this Government who are threatening to tax people’s redundancy payments—that is the scaremongering in this House.

Perhaps the Minister would like to withdraw this proposal. I will happily give way to him if he wants to reconsider his decision—he might have discussed it with the Prime Minister. In some instances, a job loss can be even worse if individuals lose their employment because of base and nasty discrimination, whether because of their age, gender, race, religion or sexuality.

The amendments speak directly to the question of how much money an employee who has lost their job should receive in tax-free redundancy pay, and how much an employee who is discriminated against should receive in tax-free compensation from an employment tribunal.

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

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that when a tribunal has granted an award on the grounds of discrimination, that is automatically exempt from tax, despite what this clause may or may not be doing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

I agree with that particular point.

We know the Government’s overall stated aim is to crack down on what they say is significant avoidance related to non-contractual payments in lieu of notice. To do this, there is a complex set of formulas to mandate what will be considered as notice pay, even when that is not actually given in lieu of notice. Amendment 1 addresses our concern that the Government are giving themselves the power to change the meaning of basic pay for the purpose of calculating notice pay. That could significantly change the basis of the calculations, so the Minister should set out more clearly the intention of this measure.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I agree with everything my hon. Friend says, of course. Does he agree that a lump sum on termination of employment could be considered as potential income over a period of years, and should not be considered just as a lump sum to be taxed within one year?

[Peter Dowd]

Again, that goes to the heart of the issue. The Government are trying to focus on a particular moment in time, rather than taking into account the fact that a person might be out of employment for a long time.

We see a running theme of this Government in this Bill and so many of their other actions: they are removing powers from Parliament and giving them to Ministers. But other elements have been tacked on to the clause that are seemingly unconnected to the stated aims about payments in lieu of notice. It is clear that the Government are laying the ground so that workers who have already lost their jobs should pay tax on more of their termination payments. Is that the message that the Government are now sending to the likes of the BAE workers? Is it the message they want to send to the victims of redundancy? There can be no other explanation for this clause. It gives the Treasury powers through delegated legislation to raise or lower the tax-free threshold.

Changes to the tax-free allowance for termination payments were first mooted by the Office of Tax Simplification in 2013 when it cited such payments as an employee benefit that would merit further study. I find it rather peculiar that a payment to an employee who has just lost their job is considered as an employee benefit—how bizarre. It is as though a termination payment were some sort of added extra and a huge inconvenience for employers, when in fact that worker has just lost their job and this may well be the last payslip they receive for a long time. The Government have promised not to reduce the threshold, so it comes as a bitter pill that the Bill will allow them to do just that.

If there is no intention to reduce the threshold, Conservative Members should have no hesitation in voting for amendment 2, which would allow the threshold only to be increased through delegated legislation, removing the power to decrease the amount. I wait with bated breath for the Minister to keep the Government’s word and accept our amendment.

In the previous debate, the Minister went to great lengths to claim that the Government’s plans to give themselves the power to water down the tax-free threshold on termination payments, and to exclude injury to feelings from tax-free compensation payments, had nothing to do with attacks on those who have just lost their jobs. No, instead that is apparently part of some ambitious strategy that the Government have to tackle tax avoidance.

The Minister is so concerned about tax avoidance that he has claimed that

“when the Government find tax avoidance, we will clamp down on it.”—[Official Report, 6 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 253.]

Such a bold assertion makes me wonder if the Minister has even read his own Finance Bill. Has he read clause 15, which we will debate later, through which his Government are loosening the rules to allow more non-doms to receive tax breaks if they use money from offshore tax havens to invest in the UK?

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that clause 15 will bring more money into this country, which is presumably a good thing, and something we can all agree on?

[Peter Dowd]

We will deal with that a little later. The hon. Gentleman may want to pay attention to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who will expose that fallacy.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Is it not the case that the Government are squeezing money out of people who cannot escape from taxation—namely, less well-off people who lose their jobs—rather than chasing the big money people who evade and avoid taxes?

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend, as ever, puts it in a nutshell. That is the case.

Has the Minister read clauses 29 to 32 and schedules 8 and 9? With those measures, the Government are deliberately signposting a loophole to ensure that non-doms can set up offshore trusts that are exempt from planned changes to non-domiciled status. That exemption completely undermines the Government’s planned changes. The fact is that this Government are not interested in tackling the scourge of tax avoidance and evasion, which costs the UK economy billions every year. They have no interest in ensuring that those who invest foreign money in the UK do so in a transparent and open manner.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that under this Government we have made the largest strides to close the tax gap that we have seen in recent years, which means that we are collecting more from rich people and tax avoiders than ever before?

[Peter Dowd]

That will be dealt with later, but it is not the case for many multinationals. The papers are strewn with examples of the Government’s sweetheart deals with multinationals, so the hon. Lady cannot tell me that that is the case.

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for generously giving way. The latest figure for the tax gap is 6.5%, which he will know is lower than that in any year under the last Labour Government. It was over 8% in the financial year 2005. He will also know that our record on avoidance and evasion is that we have raised £160 billion since 2010. What amount did his party achieve by clamping down on avoidance, evasion and non-compliance when it was in office?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

It does not include profit shifting from multinationals. I am quite happy to defend the record of the last Labour Government, but I am more interested in this Government and what the next Labour Government will do in this regard.

The Government are only interested in doing what they have always been interested in since the party was founded: dramatically curbing the rights of workers and transferring their money to those who least need it. That is, outrageously, what clause 5 will do. Why else would the Government give themselves the power to lower the tax-free threshold for statutory redundancy payment? Why else would the Government feel the need to further harm discrimination victims? If, as they say, there is a need for clarity in the definition of “injury”, why do they not accept amendment 4, which would make it clear that victims of discrimination should not have compensation for harm taxed as if it were earnings? We only need to look at the comments of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who wrote an astounding report in 2012 comparing the work practices of Germany and the United Kingdom.

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in taking interventions. He suggests that the Conservative party is not looking after those on lower incomes. Does he not accept that it was our party that increased the tax threshold for lower income workers and also introduced the living wage?

[Peter Dowd]

When we take into account cuts to working tax credits and changes to benefits, that does not stack up, I am afraid. The hon. and learned Lady should know that.

In 2012, the Chief Secretary set out how some employers in Germany were exempt from pesky regulations, such as on unfair dismissal, or social security contributions, and opined that the UK Government should follow suit. She argued that the best way to fight unemployment, particularly among the over-60s and the under-20s, was by encouraging more shift work, work on Sundays and late-night work and, yet again, getting rid of protection against unfair dismissal. Is it any wonder that this Government are hellbent on giving themselves the power to cut the amount that a worker can receive tax-free after they are dismissed?

[Rachel Maclean]

Why is the hon. Gentleman discussing removing the power of unfair dismissal when that is neither covered by the Bill nor proposed by the Government?

[Peter Dowd]

Because it goes to the heart of this Government’s attitude—[Interruption.] Narrative; that is a very good word. Should anyone in the Chamber be surprised that the same Government brought in the illegal and deeply unfair employment tribunal fees? It is part of the theme and the narrative. They are now set, once again, to try to limit the amount that workers who are discriminated against in the workplace can receive. The clause is simply another step that this Government have taken in the past seven years to distort and debase hard-won employment rights. If it remains in the Bill unamended, it will give the Government even more power to wreak havoc and misery on the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cleverly]

I am happy to take interventions, but I have never been a particularly good lip reader, so the Opposition will have to help me out on that one.

The Opposition suggested that somehow there would be some terrible Government sleight of hand to try to diddle people out of their money at a point at which they have lost their job, but it has been made absolutely clear by the Minister and in the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) that there will be transparency in any changes. None are proposed, but if they were, they would follow the affirmative procedure, which would mean a Minister at the Dispatch Box, in front of the House, being quizzed and questioned by the House. They would have to be voted on by the House. So the idea that there would be some sort of back-office sleight of hand in this is inaccurate.

At a time when we have, unfortunately, heard news of proposed job losses in one of our key businesses, the Opposition’s approach is unwise. I understand why their Front Benchers have done this—they want to attack the Bill—and I am sure that if I were in their shoes, I would find whatever means I could to try to criticise the Bill. The simple truth is that there are no such proposals and nothing in the Bill to imply that there would be, but it is right that the Government maintain the opportunity to be flexible in the future.

[Peter Dowd]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the light of the shake-up in these organisations and the dreadful stress that these people are under, introducing this clause at this time is completely inappropriate and heartless? The Government can bring it back another time if they wish.

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman will be unsurprised to hear that I do not agree with him. The Bill is where the proposal is and the passage of the Bill has been timetabled in the way that it has. The idea that we delay changing the tax treatments of severance payments to a point in time when no one in British society is in the process of losing their job is farcical, as I am sure that, on reflection, he will recognise.

As has been said, the £30,000 threshold means that 85% of termination payments are completely unaffected. I am sure we have all heard anecdotes about businesses seeking to manipulate the definitions of the various elements of severance payments specifically to avoid the tax that is owed. Surely, Opposition Members would wish to make sure, as Government Members would, that tax is applied fairly, dispassionately and transparently, and that it affects all people equally. Once again, a disproportionate burden would otherwise fall on small businesses, which do not have that administrative back-office function and cannot play manipulative games to avoid tax. They are the ones that have to pay the full tax, as is right.

Some companies may have clever back-office accountants looking at ways in which to massage the definitions of the various elements of a severance payment to minimise the tax—tax that is due to the Treasury and that we want and need to fund public services. Surely, the Labour party is not suggesting we should turn a blind eye when a clever set of accountants can massage figures, making sure that the burden falls wholly and solely on small businesses, which do not have the opportunity to employ people to do that kind of smoke-and-mirrors work? I cannot imagine that is what Labour would want to do.

Amendment 4 proposes including the words “injured feelings”. Again, I am sure that this is being proposed with the best intentions, but the Labour party must realise that putting into a Bill a definition that is so vague and open to abuse is just inviting unscrupulous businesses to use it as a means of avoiding the tax that should be fairly paid upon a severance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

I often think, when I get to my feet in the Chamber, that my job is not really to talk to the people in the Chamber. I am sure that there are many clever people in here—far better educated than me—who know all the complex details of the Bill and the nuances of the financial implications. But my job is to represent the people of Willenhall and Bloxwich in Walsall North. If they were to tune into the Parliament channel at the moment, they might be slightly perplexed as to what was going on, so I thought I would try to assist them by considering amendment 1 particularly.

I would tell my constituents that £30,000 of a termination payment is currently untaxed and this Government have no plans to change that. Opposition Members might say, “Come on—what are you playing at? You’re putting something in here so you can do something sneaky in the future.” My answer is that there is actually a statutory instrument that requires an affirmative procedure. The people of Walsall would say, “What the hell is that?” And I would tell them it means that if the Minister wants to do something in future, he needs to come back to the Chamber to get the approval of this House and he also needs the approval of the House of Lords.

My constituents would then say, “That sounds pretty reasonable, but can we trust you? Surely you’re looking to take more tax off us in the future.” I would say, “Are you kidding? Look at this party. What have we done for you? We have increased the level above which you will pay tax from £6,500 to £11,500—almost doubling it. This country has the highest level of employment it has ever had and there are more women in jobs than ever before. And which party gave you the minimum wage? Not only was it the Conservative party”—[Interruption.] My apologies—small technical problem. Okay, I would say, “Which party subsequently increased the minimum wage to the level that we are at now—a massive increase on the original introduction level?” [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] And I would tell my constituents that this party has the aspiration to increase the minimum wage even further in the future.

[Peter Dowd]

Was it not the hon. Gentleman’s party that voted against the minimum wage?

[Eddie Hughes]

I think I remember the hon. Gentleman saying, “Let’s not talk about the past. Let’s talk about what this Labour Government might do for you in the future.” Well, there is not going to be a Labour Government. There is going to be a Conservative Government who will continue to increase the minimum wage. If my constituents are going to trust anybody in the House, it should be the Conservatives. We have no intention of taking more tax off people. If we did, we would have to come back to the House to get approval anyway.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

The problem is that one cannot escape the possibility that the employer and the employee, who could both gain from reduced tax, will work together to suggest that there has been an injury to feelings, even when in fact there has not been. How does one prove whether or not there has been an injury to feelings? That is why there is a loophole.

Amendment 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, would require a review of how these changes will affect low-income workers. That is unnecessary because only 85% of the payments are below £30,000. As I have explained, the provisions do not affect awards for discrimination at work, for example. We have also maintained the £30,000 income tax exemption. We have considered the impact on low-income workers throughout, and we will continue to do so.

In conclusion, the Government recognise that losing a job is a challenging time, but we must remain vigilant to opportunities for the tax rules to be manipulated. That is why clause 5 sets out a fair and proportionate set of changes that will continue to protect the vast majority of employees. The first £30,000 of a termination payment will remain tax-free, as will the whole of the compensation payment for discrimination during employment. However, where there were opportunities for manipulation, the loopholes must be closed, and they now will be. I therefore urge hon. Members to reject the amendments and agree to clause 5.

[Peter Dowd]

The Government seem to have taken a scattergun rather than forensic approach to this matter, affecting everyone regardless of the circumstances. Time after time they go for easy targets. If they have no intention of revising thresholds downwards, what is the point? Why are they wasting the Committee’s time? The key point is whether people who have been made redundant should have further worries about their financial future vis-à-vis redundancy, and that sets a hare running, whether the Government like it or not.

Finance Bill (First sitting)

Peter Dowd Excerpts

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

[Anneliese Dodds]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Pensions advice

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 3, page 5, line 22, leave out “£500” and insert “£1,000”.

This amendment would increase the income tax exemption in relation to pensions advice from £500 to £1,000.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 11, in clause 3, page 6, line 16, at end insert—

“308D  Review of use of provisions of section 308C

(1) Within one year of the passing of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shall complete a review of the use of the provisions of section 308C in tax years 2017-18 and 2018-19.

(2) The review shall consider in particular—

(a) the use of the relief by persons over 55, and

(b) the use of the relief by women born on or after 6 April 1950.

(3) The Commissioners shall consult the Financial Conduct Authority in carrying out the review under this section.

(4) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay a report of the review under this section before the House of Commons as soon as practicable after its completion.”

This amendment would require HMRC to undertake a review of the use of the new income tax exemption for pensions advice in the first two years of its operation.

Amendment 15, in clause 3, page 6, line 16, at end insert—

“308D  Review of effectiveness of provisions of section 308C

(1) Prior to 30 June 2019, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shall complete a review of the effectiveness of the operation of the provisions of section 308C in tax years 2017-18 and 2018-19.

(2) The review shall consider in particular—

(a) the estimated value of the exemption in each tax year,

(b) the effects of the Conditions in subsections (6) and (7) , and

(c) the effects of the provisions on the availability and accessibility of relevant pensions advice.

(3) The Commissioners shall consult the Financial Conduct Authority in carrying out the review under this section.

(4) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay a report of the review under this section before the House of Commons as soon as practicable after its completion.”

This amendment would require HMRC to undertake a review of the effectiveness of the new income tax exemption for pensions advice in the first two years of its operation.

Clause 3 stand part.

[Peter Dowd]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. The extent, nature and quality of advice received by a person wanting a pension is of great importance and significance. That is particularly the case considering that, in 2017, 30% of the working age population is at state pension age or older. The Department for Work and Pensions recently summarised perfectly the importance of pensions advice on its website:

“For most people in the UK, their pension savings will be their largest financial asset, which they will save towards over the course of their working lives”.

That gets to the nub of the matter. Hopefully, most of us will be saving towards a pension for the majority of our lives and we are ultimately relying on that to secure a good-quality standard of living when we retire. Therefore, the advice received matters a great deal.

For many, the securing of pension advice is, given the nature of their employment, for example, not as problematic. People who work in certain sectors, such as the finance sector, on the whole will find that their companies automatically cover pension advice. For others, the cost of such advice is minimal in the grand scheme of things. However, it has to be said that, for those who do not have much disposable cash and whose retirement is dependent on making wise investments with their pensions and ensuring that they save the right amount, good-quality advice is the key to a more secure retirement. I am sure that that will be greeted with unanimous nodding from Government members, if nothing else.

As Committee members know, the financial advice market review was launched in August 2015

“to explore ways in which government, industry and regulators could take individual and collective steps to stimulate the development of a market that delivers affordable and accessible financial advice and guidance to everyone.”

That is a laudable endeavour if ever there was one. It set out a strong and compelling case that there is a retirement “advice gap” for those without significant wealth. Research by Unbiased, an organisation of Financial Conduct Authority-regulated advisers who are independent of product providers, found that those who sought retirement advice increased their retirement savings by an average of £98 a month. However, less than one third of people have accessed financial advice on their pension. The financial advice market review found that many people perceived financial advice to be unaffordable or “not for people” like them.

The advice gap is not getting any smaller. Although the introduction of the exemption for the first £500-worth of pensions advice to employees is welcome, particularly as it replaces the provisions that limited the advice that people could receive—the cap was set at £150—we think that that does not go far enough. Most people in the pension advice sector would reasonably point out that £500-worth of tax-free advice is a relatively small figure given the importance of the decisions that people face. There are genuine questions to be asked about the impact that such a figure will have on the current pensions advice gap and, importantly, on the quality of that advice.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the affordability of pensions advice, but the trustworthiness of pensions advice is also an issue. Even I—I am fairly numerate—do not trust the advice I am given, although fortunately the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority gives better advice than most. Many ordinary people not only think that it is not for the likes of them and are rather nervous, but fear that they are not given correct and disinterested advice.

[Peter Dowd]

That is a very valid point that people should listen to. As I said before, that goes to the nub of the situation.

In the light of that, I have a number of very reasonable amendments that the Committee members certainly will agree are pertinent, which need to be asked for and which need answers. Perhaps the Minister, who I know is the epitome of helpfulness, could explain to the Committee how the figure of £500 was reached, who was consulted on the figure, and the basis of the figure, in terms of the pensions advice market—or is the figure arbitrary? Dare I say, is there a smokescreen?

I am sure that the Government do not want to be seen to be acting without providing adequate funds to address the root problem. The cost of financial advice will inevitably inform the value of the advice. That is why we have put forward the amendment, which would raise the threshold for tax-free pension advice from £500 to £1,000. Pensions advice is, after all, the greatest protection against the threat of fraudsters keen to prey on some of those in vulnerable positions. Because we are talking about large sums of money that people rarely engage with until the end of their lives, pension savings are often an active target for scams.

We must recognise that as technology makes it easier for us to access our pension pots, it also increases the risk of fraud. This is also true of the reforms brought in by the Government under the previous Chancellor, giving pensioners greater freedom to withdraw a portion of their pensions earlier. That has been a benefit to some pensioners, although it has brought with it substantial risks and the problems that we continue to see today. The Money Advice Service website outlines the common signs of pension fraud. They include unsolicited approaches by way of a phone call, text messaging or emails. Other practices include a firm not allowing a person to call it back, and people being pressurised and forced into making a quick decision, or being encouraged to transfer pensions quickly and to send documents by courier. Contact details provided are mobile phone numbers only, or a post office box address.

Other tactics include claiming to be a person who can help to unlock a pension before the age of 55, which is sometimes known as pension liberation or referred to as a personal loan. This is possible only in very rare cases, such as very poor health. People say they know of tax loopholes, or they promise extra savings. They offer a suggested high rate of return on investments, but claim that the risk is low.

The Money Advice Service recommends that people looking for pensions advice check against the FCA register of approved pension advisers. The Opposition welcome the loosening of the advice that an individual can claim under the tax-free allowance, as I indicated earlier. Over the past few years, it has become apparent that people not only are concerned about the level of savings in their pensions, but have taken a greater interest in where their pension savings are being invested. Of course this is a good thing, and ultimately pension funds should be accountable to the person whose savings they invest.

All these issues that I have raised so far summarise the Opposition’s concerns about this clause and why we have put forward an amendment that would require a review of the effectiveness of the tax-free relief in the years 2017, 2018 and 2019. It is important that the Government accept the review, rather than rushing ahead with further reforms that may be considered tinkering around the edges. We are suggesting an increase from £500 to £1,000, and a review of the allowance system in due course.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to take part in another Finance Bill Committee, and I am looking forward to another one coming later this year. It feels like we have been discussing this one for quite some time, so I am glad to finally be at the Committee stage in a Committee Room. Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Howarth.

I wanted to highlight our amendment on this. There have been a huge number of changes in the pensions landscape in relatively recent years. In my working lifetime, we have seen a move away from a final salary pension scheme to career average for the majority of people, even in the public sector. We have seen changes to things such as the lifetime individual savings account and the ability to withdraw pensions. Those are pretty significant changes in the landscape; pensions for people my age look very different from how they looked not that many years ago.

We have also seen changes to the Women Against State Pension Inequality issue, and the equalisation problem. A number of people have come through the door of my surgery and talked to me about how they have been caught by the WASPI issue. If they had had different pensions advice, they would not have retired in the way they did. More than one person who took early retirement now finds that they are caught by the WASPI issue when they should have retired under ill health, which would have given them a completely different outlook on their pensions. If they had had more appropriate advice when they were deciding when to retire, they would have been much better off.

I welcome the Minister’s proposal to make the first £500 of pension advice tax-free; that is an important change and one that we all generally agree with. I agree with the shadow Minister, however, who asked whether £500 is the most appropriate amount. Should it be £1,000? Should it be less? The amendment we have put forward specifically asks about the issues for women born on or after 6 April 1950, because they are the ones who have been caught by this WASPI issue. I am keen to see an increased uptake of pensions advice by those women, because for some of them changing the way in which they retire would make a difference.

Those women have been failed by the system. They have been failed by the Government, who have moved the goalposts and changed the date on which they expected to retire. Some of them retired not long ago and were completely unaware of the change. Those are people who would have read every bit of paper that came through their door. A medical secretary came to my surgery the other day. A medical secretary is someone very diligent about reading bits of information that come through the door, particularly about financial matters that are important for her future, and I believe that she would have chosen a different route to retirement if she had had appropriate advice, and if she had known what would happen on state pension equalisation and what would happen to her.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Peter Dowd]

It is crucial that we send the message that the Government are serious about helping people with their pension advice. Although the figure has gone up from £150—a fairly small amount in itself—to £500, we believe that still does not send the proper message about seeking sound advice. Given that, and notwithstanding the Minister’s assurances, we will press the amendment increasing the figure to £1,000 to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to press amendment 15?

[Peter Dowd]

Given the assurances from the Minister, no, Mr Howarth.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Legal expenses etc

[Peter Dowd]

I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 4, page 9, line 23, at end insert—

‘(7A) After section 716B (Employment intermediaries, etc), insert—

“716C  Review of effectiveness of changes to reliefs for legal expenses

(1) Prior to 30 June 2019, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shall complete a review of the effectiveness of the changes made to this Act by section 3 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017.

(2) The review shall consider in particular the estimated value of the additional relief provided as a result of the changes in each tax year.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay a report of the review under this section before the House of Commons as soon as practicable after its completion.””

This amendment would require HMRC to undertake a review of the effectiveness of the changes relating to relief in connection with legal expenses in Clause 4.

[The Chair]

With this, it will be convenient to discuss clause 4 stand part.

[Peter Dowd]

We all agree that the current model of legal expenses or indemnity insurance for employees is wholly inadequate to the modern workplace. It is worth getting a plug in here in relation to the household insurance that people have for when they wish to defend their position in court, whether criminal or civil. I have experience of some of these policies not being fit for purpose. That goes to the heart of some of these issues, although it is not directly related. I am sure that other Members have had people come to them with insurance policies that they bought thinking they would cover them for this, that or the other, only to find that they are not fit for purpose. It is worth this Committee sending the message out that some of those policies are not up to scratch.

Getting back to the point, under the current system, only an employee who has had an allegation made against them can claim for legal expenses, which will be deducted from their earnings. Potentially, if a person is called as a witness at a public hearing, he or she will immediately be put out of pocket for any legal expenses. Similarly, if an employee is to give evidence at a public hearing, perhaps in one of our Committee Rooms in this building, under the current system they will be out of pocket if they need legal counsel. That is a deterrent to both employee and employer. The measure would tidy up and expand the current, rather vague, provision to cover employees giving evidence at public hearings, which we welcome; however, I have a number of questions.

How many employers will the new measure cover? Will it cover all employers? How extensive is it? Are any particular sectors affected by the measure? What is the estimated cost of such a measure to the Exchequer? Does the measure include cover for employment tribunals? That has been a bone of contention in the past few months, in the light of the Government’s introduction of quite significant fees for people making employment tribunal claims.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

There is evidence that thousands of people have been deterred from bringing a case to employment tribunals simply because of the fees.

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is why it is important to tease out the issues. People get confused and deeply worried about these matters, so we need clarity.

Our concern is that the measure will, in essence, be used as a tax break for employers, to the detriment of employees. I am not saying that that is the intention, but it is important to get clarity. Given the lack of detail, we believe that a review of the impact of the changes on the coverage of legal expenses is in order. It would focus specifically on the effectiveness of the measure, the value of the relief and, of course, how many employers and employees it brings within its purview. I reaffirm the point: it is important that this area is clarified and that people know the direction of travel, which is why we moved the amendment, to keep tabs on the proposal.

[Mel Stride]

Before I address Labour’s amendment 16, I will set out the purpose of clause 4.

The clause makes changes to ensure fair and consistent tax treatment for employees who receive legal support from their employer. Currently, employers may provide legal support or a legal indemnity insurance to their employees tax and NICs-free but, as the hon. Member for Bootle rightly points out, that only applies when employees have had allegations made against them in connection with their employment. Construction workers, nurses or surveyors, for example, may have legal indemnity insurance to provide legal advice in case they are accused of negligence. No equivalent tax treatment for relief is available in relation to proceedings in which no allegation has been made against the employee, such as when an employee is asked to give evidence before a public inquiry.

The changes made by the clause will extend the existing provisions to correct that unfairness. The relief will be made available for expenses incurred in employment-related proceedings where no allegation has been made against the employee. In addition, the clause extends a relief for individuals on termination of their employment or for individuals now deceased, so that a deduction is allowable if the relevant costs are met by the employer on behalf of the individual.

The hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions, in particular about the cost to the Exchequer of the measures, which will in fact be negligible. We expect fewer than 1,500 employees in total to require the benefits of the measure.

As we have heard, amendment 16 would require HMRC commissioners to complete a review before 30 June 2019 of the effectiveness of the changes. Such a review would be disproportionate. As I have explained, this is an important but small change to correct an unfairness. As there is no tax to pay, employers do not need to report information about the legal support or legal indemnity insurance provided to their employees. Indeed, it would be burdensome for employers to have to provide such information simply for the purposes of the review sought by the hon. Gentleman. I urge the Committee to resist the amendment.

The Government acknowledge that legal inquiries can be a challenging and unfamiliar time for employees. The clause will make the system fairer by extending the existing relief for all employees who may require legal advice, helping to ensure that they get the support they need. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Peter Dowd]

Again, I appreciate the Minister’s explanations and assurances to some extent, but this is one of those areas that is of importance to people. It is very technical, but teasing the issues out is important. A review might be of specific areas, but reviews often bring up other issues and signpost for us where regulations or the law may need to be changed or tightened. For that reason, it is important for us to send the message that this is something that we will review. Notwithstanding the assurances given, I will press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

Clause 6 makes changes to simplify the PAYE settlement agreements process, by allowing employers to propose PAYE settlement agreements without the need to agree that with an officer of Revenue and Customs beforehand. PAYE settlement agreements, or PSAs, were introduced in the 1990s as an administrative easement for employers and HMRC. They allow employers to settle, in a single payment, the income tax liability on behalf of their employees for certain benefits-in-kind and expenses.

In their 2014 review of employee benefits and expenses, the Office of Tax Simplification highlighted a number of issues with the PSA process. In response, the Government launched a consultation in the summer of 2016 on proposals to simplify the process for arranging, and clarifying the use of, PAYE settlement agreements. In line with the Office of Tax Simplification’s recommendations, the changes being made by clause 6 will simplify the PSA process. Employers will no longer be required to submit a request in advance of their year-end reporting obligations. Instead, they will be able to submit their PSA request at the year end and make ad hoc requests throughout the year. It also removes the need for PAYE settlement agreements to be agreed with an officer of HMRC. In addition, HMRC will develop a digital tool to replace the submission of paper returns. HMRC’s guidance will be strengthened and updated, in order to reduce errors and provide certainty for employers.

The Government are committed to reducing the administrative burden for employers. In line with recommendations made by the OTS, clause 6 will help to simplify the PSA process and provide certainty and stability for employers. I therefore move that this clause stands part of the Bill.

[Peter Dowd]

Although the Opposition have not tabled an amendment on this clause, Members will be aware that we have wider concerns about the overall intention of the measure and, for example, its relationship to the Government’s wider digital tax strategy. We have been clear that, although we support the gradual digitisation of taxation and the capacity it has to remove the administrative burden from HMRC, the self-employed, small and medium-sized businesses and larger companies that have to submit tax returns, we are concerned about the Government’s rush to introduce this timetable, which in our view is ill thought-out—as we have said many times.

In principle, we agree with the aims of the measure, which appears to allow employers the ability to settle income tax liabilities for certain benefits and expenses in a more efficient and timely manner. I do not think any of us would want to argue with that. However, we are concerned about the removal, without assurances, of the agreement of the officers of HMRC in this process. I am sure that that is mere coincidence, given that the measure is being introduced at a time when the Government have reduced HMRC staffing levels by 17% since 2010. I would like to take it on good faith from the Minister that the removal of the need for agreement with an officer of HMRC has little to do with the falling numbers of staff.

The clause explicitly states that this measure aligns with the principles of HMRC’s wider digital transformation strategy and therefore it seems impossible to discuss the clause without also referring to clauses 60 to 62, which introduce the digital reporting of VAT and income tax. Given that link, I would like to take the opportunity to ask the Minister about the overall digital transformation strategy at HMRC.

First, how far along is HMRC with this new digital solution that the Government plan to develop? How many pilots have been run of the new software needed at HMRC? How many of those pilots were successful? What is the cost to HMRC of the new software? What is the cost to an employer of using that software? How will HMRC be able to intervene manually to mitigate compliance risk?

The Government have made much of the huge administrative burden that employers face, and of how this measure, along with others, will ensure that employers can submit their PAYE settlement agreement requests at the end of the year and make ad hoc requests during the year, but that is surely completely inconsistent with the Government’s plans to mandate quarterly digital reporting for income tax and VAT. It will remove some administrative burdens for employers with regard to income tax on the one hand, but add further burdens on the other. I would be grateful if the Minister helped us out with that.

[Mel Stride]

As we have set out, clause 6 makes changes to simplify the PSA process. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Bootle appears to welcome those changes. The Government believe that it is extremely important to lower the burdens on our businesses, which create the wealth and pay the taxes that pay for the public services that, as a civilised society, we all want.

The hon. Gentleman raised making tax digital and the digital changes to the way that tax will be reported. He will know that I laid a written ministerial statement a little while ago that set out a changed timescale for the roll-out of that element. Consequently, no businesses will be involved in making tax digital until 2019 at the earliest, and even then only those at or above the VAT threshold will be involved, and only in respect of VAT reporting. No further roll-out will occur in any other areas until 2020 at the earliest. The Government are in listening mode, and we have listened extremely carefully and reacted extremely positively to feedback from businesses.

The hon. Gentleman raised several pertinent and legitimate questions about the piloting of the making tax digital process. They were very specific, and I do not think for a moment that he expects me to have all the answers in my head, talented though I am.

[Mel Stride]

And modest—quite. I will ensure that we write to the hon. Member for Bootle to answer the specific questions that he asked in that context.

[Peter Dowd]

I take the Minister’s assurances. I am sure that he has all the answers in his head, but he does not want to share them at this point. I will be able to read the letter that he sends over a nice cup of tea.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Money purchase annual allowance

[Peter Dowd]

I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 7, page 15, line 11, at end insert—

‘(4A) After section 227G (when pension rights are first flexibly accessed), insert—

“227H  Review of effects of changes to money purchase annual allowance

(1) Prior to 30 June 2019, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shall complete a review of the effects of the changes made to this Act by section 7 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017.

(2) The review shall consider in particular—

(a) the change to the tax charge applied in each tax year, and

(b) the behavioural effects of the changes.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay a report of the review under this section before the House of Commons as soon as practicable after its completion.”’

This amendment would require HMRC to undertake a review of the effects of the change to the money purchase annual allowance in Clause 7.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 7 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

The money purchase allowance has its roots in the latter days of the previous Chancellor’s tenure at the Treasury. The pension flexibility measures that were introduced in 2015 gave pensioners those flexibilities if they wished to pay anything further into a defined-contribution pension, but restricted the contributions on which they could receive tax relief. The Government set the money purchase allowance at £10,000, limiting the tax relief that pensioners could receive. The clause will cut that drastically, to £4,000.

The Minister says that the clause is, in effect, an attempt to stop individuals who have already accessed pension savings recycling that cash back into pensions, thereby benefiting from tax relief a second time. I completely acknowledge the concern about that, but a number of pensioners will no doubt be caught by the change. In fact, the submissions that we all received by email and were circulated today allude to that, and I will come to that in a bit more detail.

How much notice have pensioners been given of this planned change? What marketing and targeted awareness campaigns have the Government conducted to ensure pensioners are aware of the change? How much has the Treasury or other Departments spent to ensure that pensioners are aware of the change? I come back to the point I made earlier that this is about the security of people’s retirement. People have planned and are planning for retirement and, what with Brexit and lots of other things going on in the world, we want to keep the uncertainty in life to an absolute minimum. I am sure that everybody agrees with that.

How much does the Financial Secretary believe that the measure will raise? The Opposition feel that there is a clear need for the level of the money purchase annual allowance to be reviewed, and many of the stakeholders who have written to us agree. It is important that the Government take the necessary steps to ensure that pensioners who are caught out by the change are not at an unfair disadvantage.

One submission to Members in the bundle that has been circulated indicates:

“The reduction of the Money Purchase Annual Allowance to £4,000:

a. will create an anomalous position

b. may encourage manipulation of pension arrangements to use the small pots rules to circumvent the MPAA rules

c. will create a differential position between members of occupational arrangements and personal schemes”.

The submission gives a perfectly reasonable example of that, which I will not go into now.

Another organisation, the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, also has concerns. It was set up by the Chartered Institute of Taxation to give “a voice to the unrepresented”. I will quote from its submission, because it is pertinent:

“The money purchase annual allowance of £10,000 is very unlikely to catch out too many people who might do this. But reducing it to £4,000 from April 2017–equating to savings of £333 a month–is much more likely to cause problems for these people; especially if thinking about it in terms of someone choosing to save money they might have previously been paying on a mortgage. This is even easier to see as being a problem if we consider that the net of basic rate tax contribution–the amount the individual pays–would be £3,200, ie £266 per month. Such a monthly sum could well be half the person’s previous mortgage repayments and therefore an easy sum to find for topping up their pensions”.

The review laid out in our amendment seeks to review the effectiveness of the measure, how many people it affects and the impact of cutting the money purchase allowance on the overall level of pension contributions.

To conclude, I cannot reiterate this point too much. I do not think it is necessarily a question of our wanting to replace the £10,000 with £4,000, £6,000 or £8,000 or any other figure, for that matter. If the Government have made that decision—and it is reasonable to adjust the figure up or down, whatever it might be—given that this is about people’s pensions and their future in retirement, it is important that we are clear what the impact is going to be. That is why we ask for the review. We all need to satisfy ourselves that when we are dealing with this area, for which people have planned, they are not going to be detrimentally affected at a time in their lives when they may be vulnerable.

[Mel Stride]

Amendment 17 would require the Government to undertake a review of the effect of the change to the money purchase annual allowance under clause 7. Before I set out why that review would be unnecessary, I want first to remind Committee members of the background to clause 7, and what it seeks to achieve. The historic pension freedoms introduced in April 2015 have given people with savings in money purchase arrangements greater flexibility to get access to their pension savings. Once a person has accessed their pension savings flexibly, further tax-relieved contributions are restricted to the money purchase annual allowance.

--- Later in debate ---

Reducing the MPAA limits the extent to which pension savings can be recycled, while allowing those who want flexible access to pension savings the opportunity to rebuild some of their savings, should they choose to do so. The Government have consulted on the change and are confident that it is the right decision. I therefore urge hon. Members to withdraw the amendment and I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Peter Dowd]

In the spirit of co-operation and the assurances the Minister gave, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment in relation to a review. None the less, serious concerns have been identified by organisations. The Minister alluded to the fact that there did not appear to be much concern, but that is not what I am hearing, hence the need for a review. However, in the light of the Minister’s assurances, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Dividend nil rate for tax year 2018-19 etc

[Anneliese Dodds]

I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 8, page 15, line 17, at end insert—

‘(1A) After section 13A (income charged at the dividend nil rate), insert—

“13B  Review of effects of changes to dividend nil rate

(1) Prior to 30 June 2019, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shall complete a review of the effects of the changes made to this Act by section 8 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017.

(2) The review shall consider in particular the effects on the self-employed.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay a report of the review under this section before the House of Commons as soon as practicable after its completion.”’

This amendment would require HMRC to undertake a review of the effects of the change to the dividend nil rate in Clause 8.

Finance Bill (Second sitting)

Peter Dowd Excerpts

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 21, in schedule 3, page 155, line 15, at end insert—

“Chapter 3

Review of chapters 1 and 2

783BR Review of operation of this Part

(1) Prior to 30 June 2020, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shall complete a review of the operation of the provisions of this Part.

(2) The review shall consider in particular—

(a) the use and effects of full relief,

(b) the use and effects of partial relief,

(c) the use of relief in relation to trading income, and

(d) the use of relief in relation to property income.

(3) The review shall compare the effects on the Exchequer in each of the first two years of its operation with the effects forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility at the time of—

(a) the 2016 Budget, and

(b) the 2016 Autumn Statement.

(4) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay a report of the review under this section before the House of Commons as soon as practicable after its completion.”

This amendment would require HMRC to undertake a review of the operation of the new trading and property allowances in the first two relevant tax years.

That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker.

I appreciate that the strictures of Finance Bill procedure commonly give rise to the overwhelming excitement of review amendments, so I ask the Committee to withhold its lack of surprise that amendment 21 would introduce yet another review. The Government’s sensible stated aim in introducing the allowance is to recognise that many taxpayers no longer fit within a neat and simple model of PAYE-only income or self-assessment-only income. We all recognise that that is the reality, but we should not get too carried away by the idea that online hobby trading is an entirely new activity triggered by the advent of the online sharing economy; I suspect it is more like old wine in new skins. Spending a weekend repairing a few clocks as a hobby and then selling them on eBay for extra income on the side is not an entirely new phenomenon. People 20 years ago did the same through car boot sales, antique fairs or classified ads; this is just a modern version.

Modernising the tax system to recognise the multiple sources of income that taxpayers may now receive is sensible, but we should not always imagine that the problems that we are trying to solve are entirely new, nor should we make too hasty a stab in the dark for solutions. The Association of Taxation Technicians says that, as drafted, the provisions discriminate against individuals who, in addition to having the type of microbusiness to which the trading allowance is intended to apply, also have a sole trader business which cannot benefit from the trading allowance. In that situation, the provisions prevent the microbusiness from qualifying for the trading allowance. The ATT’s concern is that the allowance is potentially discriminatory.

The Government state that the aim of the allowance is to provide

“simplicity and certainty regarding Income Tax obligations on small amounts of income from providing goods, services, property or other assets…and to help the UK become leaders in the digital and sharing economy”,

but it could easily end up creating new complications for taxpayers, or lead inadvertently to perverse incentives. The Chartered Institute of Taxation’s Low Incomes Tax Reform Group welcomes the aim of the measures, but has said that it is

“very concerned that unrepresented low-earners will struggle to understand some of the more complex rules, especially if they have overlap profits, more than one trade or source of income or have not elected, as often will be the case, to use the cash basis of accounting.”

Its concerns stem especially from the fact that this relief’s intended group of users is less likely to engage professional accountants or other advisers. As a result of the complications involved in having to choose a particular accounting basis or work out the types of income that apply, the allowance may fail to benefit that group of users. It may instead become yet another strand in the complex web of allowances that professional advisers throw into the mix when helping their clients to avoid tax.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s comments about the role of personal advisers; the same point came up this morning. Moreover, has not HMRC’s online system for calculating the taxes payable on relatively small amounts of income already been found wanting? As a result of the interaction between the four different allowances—personal savings, tax-free dividend income, the savings starting rate and the personal allowance—individuals have become liable for more tax than they should have to pay, because the online system is not calibrated appropriately. In theory, the new provision is meant to obviate the need to declare income for those purposes, but does my hon. Friend not agree that it must be designed carefully to avoid the flaws that affect people with small incomes who qualify for the allowances?

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head; that is an excellent forensic point that the Minister will have heard, and will, I hope, take up, especially in relation to our amendment.

The potential problems might be still bigger in the case of property income where the new relief interacts with existing schemes such as rent-a-room relief. Taxpayers will need to work out which relief applies before determining whether and how they need to make a self-assessment return. Although I am confident that the Minister is genuine in his desire to help more people get on the right side and make the right declarations for their taxes, I worry that the added complexity could easily put off more people from making the correct declaration. I suspect that none of us wants that, including him, because it is not particularly sensible. In many cases, it will not be due to anyone’s desire for dishonesty; it will be because taxpayers used to operating only within pay-as-you-earn will be confronted with a confusion of options in considering how they must declare to HMRC.

The Low Incomes Tax Reform Group has rightly highlighted the complications that might arise for lower-income households. The new reliefs might free taxpayers from the need to declare very small amounts to HMRC, but will not have the same effect of releasing their obligations to account to the Department for Work and Pensions if they are universal credit claimants. Those are the households that would benefit most from simplification, rather than finding themselves subject to the most bewildering requirements to account to the state. I do not wish to waylay the Committee with the ongoing issue of universal credit implementation, as we will undoubtedly have a debate about that tomorrow, but the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group highlights a fair point: so-called simplifications involving tax and social security can sometimes have the opposite effect on those expected to use them. I think that we have all witnessed that to a greater or lesser degree.

Our amendment proposes an HMRC review, to report by 2020, of the use of the reliefs and the resulting effects on the Exchequer. I know that the inclination is to resist all Opposition amendments, but I can see little cause to resist this one. Inevitably, just like other measures discussed earlier, the reliefs will be revisited, unpicked, reworked and recalibrated in future Budgets. Sensible and calm review by HMRC must be in the interests of everybody involved.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle. It is said that Britain has more accountants per head of population than any other country, probably because the complexity of our tax system means that we all need to use one. However, in this situation, as he said, the amounts involved might be small, and the cost of an accountant might be quite high. That could deter people from using accountants, getting them into more difficulty.

Is there not a case for a proper review by HMRC, which knows the score because it deals with such things on a daily basis? HMRC could advise the Government on introducing appropriate changes that would simplify the tax system as well as helping those who would benefit from tax reliefs in a more practical and pragmatic way.

[Mel Stride]

Clause 17 and schedule 3 introduce two new tax allowances so that, from April 2017, individuals with gross trading or property income below £1,000 no longer have to declare or pay tax on that income. Digital platforms are allowing more and more people to supplement their income by sharing property, resources, time and skills. It is perhaps a rather more rapidly growing segment than the hon. Member for Bootle recognised. The UK is a world leader in the sharing economy; a report by PwC shows that the UK sharing economy has grown at the fastest pace in Europe, with transactions worth about £7.4 billion in 2015. This is expected to grow to £140 billion in 2025.

As the economy changes, the tax system should keep pace. For this reason the Government want to support the sharing economy and ensure that the tax system is not burdensome for those making small amounts of income, whether through selling goods, providing services or renting out their property. This could include those advertising their plumbing services through an online platform or those renting out a driveway space, for example. The changes made by clause 17 will introduce two new income tax allowances so that the individuals with gross trading or property income below £1,000 will no longer have to declare or pay tax on that income. Many individuals engaging in these activities on a small scale are not aware of their tax obligations. The new allowances make these obligations clear and straightforward, providing much needed clarity for people making small levels of extra income.

The trading allowance will also include miscellaneous income from providing assets or services, creating certainty for individuals, who will not have to understand tax case law to determine whether their activities should be taxed as a trade. The Government estimate that at least 700,000 individuals could benefit from the allowances. Over three quarters of these are basic rate taxpayers who could save up to £400 in income tax each year.

The Opposition raised a number of points. One was the lack of availability of this allowance to those who are already making self-assessments to HMRC, because they are already sole traders. Part of the reason for that is to ensure that we do not have any diversion of activity from those individuals’ general work arrangements into this scheme driven solely by an attempt to lower taxation. The point has been made about the importance of simplicity in the scheme. Certain aspects of the scheme clearly make it simple: people with that kind of income are not required to make a submission to HMRC, and there is a “miscellaneous” category of income that can address the complications around whether this is trading income—“miscellaneous” is quite a wide-ranging term.

The hon. Member for Bootle raised a fair point on rent-a-room tax relief arrangements; that is why HMRC’s efforts in detailing its guidance on the gov.uk website are so important. All the allowances will be very carefully explained. The guidance is being prepared alongside representative bodies and will include clear, step-by-step explanations and a number of examples, so it will be very easy for people to follow exactly how the arrangements work. Support will also be available via the HMRC helpline.

Amendment 21 would require HMRC to complete a review of the cost and effectiveness of the allowances by 2020 and the effects on the Exchequer in each of the first two years. Such a review is unnecessary. As I have set out, the two new allowances ensure that the tax system is not burdensome for those making small amounts of income. Their effect will be to support the enormous contribution that the sharing economy is making to the UK economy, while simplifying the tax system to support the job creators of the future. As there is no need for taxpayers to declare this income to HMRC, any review would impose a disproportionate burden on taxpayers and be inconsistent with the core rationale for the reliefs. In addition, the Bill also includes specific clauses designed to prevent abuse, and HMRC will carefully monitor the reliefs to ensure that they work as intended. I therefore urge the Committee to resist this amendment.

The two new tax allowances will help micro-entrepreneurs by removing complexity and uncertainty for those wanting to earn small amounts of extra income. There will be no forms to fill in and no tax to pay. It is a tax break for the digital age, furthering the Government’s commitment to simplify the tax system and help the UK become a global leader in the digital and sharing economy. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Peter Dowd]

We will not press the amendment to a vote but the Minister acknowledges, de facto, that the economy and the world of work is changing fast. There are so many developments out there—apps, online, the whole kit and caboodle—which is all the more reason for the Government to keep on top of this issue. That is why we want the review, because the world changes so quickly.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

Obviously, universal credit is being rolled out. That will be a particular detriment to people on very low incomes who are self-employed, because they will be deemed to earn the minimum wage on 35 hours a week throughout the year: around £13,600. If their actual income is below that at the moment, they can receive tax credits and are eligible to apply if they have children and a family. Under universal credit, they will not be able to receive such payments, though they may be liable for tax. That is another reason why a review after the roll-out of universal credit would be particularly useful, to see the impact on the self-employed and people with micro- businesses.

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. This is not quite as simple as the Minister would like us to believe, although I am not suggesting that he is trying to cajole us into it. The bottom line is that we will not push this to a vote today but we hope that the Minister takes into account the views we have expressed. If he does not wish to take account of our views, I exhort him to consider those of at least the two organisations that sent us documentation on the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 18

Carried-forward Losses

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 22, in schedule 4, page 230, line 37, at end insert—

“188FAA Review of operation of this Part

(1) Prior to 30 June 2020, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shall complete a review of the operation of the provisions of this Part.

(2) The review shall consider in particular—

(a) the use and effects of reliefs under this Part,

(b) the effects on the Exchequer in each year of operation,

(c) a comparison of the amounts referred to in paragraph (b) and any official forecasts of those amounts prior to the introduction of this Part.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay a report of the review under this section before the House of Commons as soon as practicable after its completion.”

This amendment would require HMRC to undertake a review of the operation of the provisions for group relief for carried-forward losses.

Amendment 23, in schedule 4 page 247, line 2, at end insert—

55A (1) Prior to 30 June 2019, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shall complete a review in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph.

(2) The review shall consider the changes made in—

(a) paragraphs 24 to 26 of this Schedule in relation to insurance companies,

(b) paragraphs 27 to 46 of this Schedule in relation to certain creative industries,

(c) paragraphs 47 to 55 of this Schedule in relation to oil activities.

(3) The review shall consider in particular and in relation to each of the sectors mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)—

(a) the use and effects of the changes made,

(b) the effects on the Exchequer in each year of operation,

(c) a comparison of the amounts referred to in paragraph (b) and any official forecasts of those amounts prior to the introduction of this Part, and

(d) any effects on the economic activities of companies and others in each of the sectors mentioned in sub-paragraph (2).

(4) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay a report of the review under this paragraph before the House of Commons as soon as practicable after its completion.”

This amendment would require HMRC to undertake a review of the operation of the provisions for carrying forward trade losses for insurance companies, creative industries and oil activities.

That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.

Clause 19 stand part.

[Peter Dowd]

These two clauses and the schedule represent the most complicated measures in the Bill, as I suspect everybody acknowledges. The corporate tax system and its rules on carrying forward losses present a maze of regulations and rules to be navigated by the heads of companies before they can claim relief. There is, therefore, some merit behind the Government’s measures to relax the rules around losses.

Under these measures, companies can set losses arising on 1 April this year against the total taxable profits, rather than particular types of income of a company and its group members. The amount of losses they can carry forward will be restricted to 50% and will apply to any losses incurred at any time. Of course, on top of that, each company or group will be entitled to a £5 million annual allowance of unrestricted profit, ensuring that 99% of companies are unaffected by the restriction.

I would like to ask the Minister how the £5 million figure for the annual allowance was reached. In addition, what consideration has the Treasury given to lowering or raising the threshold for unrestricted profit? The reforms being discussed today were first announced at the 2016 Budget. The Government then consulted on the measure in the business tax road map, as it was called, which I understand has led to this package of clauses and schedule.

The changes to the current rules have been encouraged because, under the old system, companies could offset all their eligible taxable profits through losses carried forward. That led to a situation where in some instances a large company pays no tax in a year when it makes a substantial profit. The majority of G7 countries already have restrictions of this kind in place.

I believe it is important to look at international comparisons and examine how other countries deal with this complex issue. From my research, it is clear that the big distinctions on how countries focus on carried-forward losses are: the length of time losses can be carried back; the length of time losses can be carried forward; and when losses can be shared with other companies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

There is a lot of evidence that the banks are still engaging in risky gambling on the international exchanges, and compensating for that by squeezing ordinary taxpayers, ordinary bank customers and small businesses in particular to back up their gambling losses. Would my hon. Friend say that we are still facing danger in the future because of the banks’ behaviour?

[Peter Dowd]

We always have to be vigilant—that is the key. Vigilance is crucial. Virtually no one had experienced anything like the banking crisis in living memory. Given that, we have to be on our guard that we do not all breathe such a sigh of relief that it was so long ago that we lose our vigilance.

It seems to me that strong regulations, which will not only protect the taxpayer and their savings, but develop practices at the heart of the industry, are the only bulwark against another financial crisis being created and enacted through reckless banking practice. I hope that the Minister will give some thought to that, particularly given that when we finish the summer-autumn Finance Bill we will immediately start the winter Finance Bill. Given the Government’s delayed and, I have to say, sometimes chaotic timetable, it will no doubt end up being called the spring Bill instead. Dare I say it, we have a Minister who is the man for all seasons in that regard. [Interruption.] Don’t give up the day job, as they say—or perhaps hon. Members would like me to.

Many of the stakeholders to whom the Opposition spoke raised concerns about the complexity of the proposals and the speed with which the Government have attempted to take them through.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for running through many of the problems that stakeholders have mentioned to us. One addition to the many ambiguities he mentioned is that, to my mind, a clear rationale does not seem to have been provided for the decision to loosen the rules so that past losses can be offset against any type of profit, rather than the current position of only being able to offset them against the same type of profit—for example, only offsetting trading losses against trading profits. That is yet another change for which we perhaps require further information and debate.

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend makes another good point. The Chartered Institute of Taxation has criticised the Government—“criticise” is the word I use, although I am not sure it would say that; it would most probably say it has brought this to the Government’s attention—for not balancing

“its desires to raise some modest revenue with its duty to produce legislation that can be followed with predictability and certainty.”

Other financial organisations have argued that the measure is likely to create winners and losers. Small groups unlikely to have £5 million of losses, for which this is a high proportion of the total, will benefit from the change. For large groups that wish to access the group relief changes, it is less clear. Deloitte has argued that the slowdown in offset of brought-forward losses for large groups may in fact mean an acceleration in the tax cost for larger companies. Will the Minister offer more clarity on how the group relief will work in practice—particularly the nomination process, whereby a specific company has to be nominated to manage the whole group relief?

The measure seems fraught with potential dangers. For starters, the Bill makes no mention of what happens when a company chooses to join or leave a group that benefits from the group relief. Will the Minister explain whether such a mechanism will be built into the legislation, or whether we will need a further clause in a future Finance Bill that tinkers with carried-forward losses once more? Given the uncertainty felt by many in the business community, the Opposition believe it is only right that the Government submit a review of the operation of the group relief in the carried-forward losses, assessing the cost and impact of the new restrictions and how they will impact on large companies.

[Mel Stride]

Clauses 18 and 19 and schedule 4 make changes to the rules for corporation tax losses, as we have discussed. They modernise the losses rules by increasing their flexibility, while at the same time ensuring that companies pay tax in years when they earn significant profits. When a company makes a loss, it can carry it forward and use it to offset the tax liability of certain income in future years. Carrying forward losses is an important feature of the tax system and ensures that the tax paid by companies is proportionate with their profits over the long term.

However, these loss relief rules are not reflective of the way businesses operate and are out of step with international practice, which I shall come on to in a moment. First, carried-forward losses can typically only be set against profits from the activities to which they relate, as the hon. Member for Bootle pointed out, rather than the profits of other activities in a company, or the profits of other companies within a group. Secondly, the absence of any restriction on the amount of taxable profit that can be relieved by carried-forward losses means businesses making substantial UK profits may not pay any corporation tax due to losses incurred on historic activities.

The clauses will have effect from 1 April 2017, in line with the commencement date previously announced by the Government. The changes made by clause 18 will mean that rules will be relaxed for losses arising from 1 April 2017 that are carried forward, such that those losses can be set against the profits of different activities within a company and the taxable profits of its group members. As we have said, the amount of annual profit that can be relieved by carried-forward losses will be restricted to 50% from 1 April 2017, subject to an allowance of £5 million per group.

The hon. Member for Bootle asked specifically about that £5 million figure, and about whether the Treasury has looked at international comparisons and factored that into its thinking on this matter. I assure him that it has. This rate is more generous than the rates in a number of other countries. In Germany, for example, the rate is €1 million. As he pointed out, the main rationale for focusing the restriction above £5 million is to bear down on the top 1% of profitable businesses in the country without going further down the spectrum. We believe that we have achieved the right trade-off between the level of the figure and the number of companies that will potentially be affected by the restriction.

--- Later in debate ---

These clauses and the schedule introduce new rules that will modernise the UK’s loss relief and will help to ensure that businesses cannot use carried-forward losses to pay no tax in each accounting period in which they make substantial profits. I hope that Opposition Members will not press their amendment, and I commend these measures to the Committee.

[Peter Dowd]

I tried to set to out as comprehensively as I could, without getting too complicated, complex or specific, why we were concerned to keep tabs on this. Trying to keep tabs on the Government’s proposals has been today’s theme, and that is why we have asked for reviews. In the current climate, when there are so many pressures on public services and a range of challenges for the country, we are all concerned to ensure that organisations that benefit from our fantastic country and from the protection of the rule of law pay their dues. That is not to point the finger at anyone specifically to say they are not paying their dues, but to ensure that we to some extent guard the guards. That is what we are trying to do today: to guard the guards; that is our job and our responsibility. Given the Minister’s explanation, we will not press the amendment, but no doubt we will come back to these issues in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Graham Stuart.)

Finance Bill (Third sitting)

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 19th October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Howarth. I am looking forward to this debate because it is something all of us across the House feel concerned about. I recognise that we are debating the Finance Bill. I reassure you that the amendments and the majority of what I will talk about today are about taxation and, in particular, the requirements of the legislation. I just want briefly to set out how that fits into the context of the concerns that are shared across the House about private finance and the cost to the public sector of borrowing to be able to build the infrastructure that we all know we need.

To be clear, Governments of all colours have used private finance and continue to do so. The private finance initiative and private finance 2 schemes are little different from each other. It is recognised that questions about the companies involved and the role of taxation in the decision to use PFI or PF2 to fund public infrastructure are questions for all of us, because we see in our constituencies the problems that are caused.

I note that the constituency of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar now has repayments of £169 million as a result of private finance. The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle, the shadow Minister, has £423 million-worth of repayments required under private finance contracts. I would describe private finance as the hire purchase of the public sector—indeed the legal loan sharks of the public sector— because the companies offer credit to the public sector, but at a high cost. In particular, the cost of the credit—the taxation that will come from the companies involved—is part of the decision to go with them. That is specifically part of the Green Book calculations. I am looking forward to the Minister telling us what has happened to those Green Book calculations, which were supposedly withdrawn in 2013 but I understand are still being used by Departments for private finance deals, to understand how tax plays a part in the decision to use private finance companies. The idea is that this form of credit may be more expensive but that the companies will repay us in taxation in the UK. That forms part of the decision to use them. The widespread evidence now is that those companies are not paying UK taxes, and that they are benefiting from changes in our tax regime over the past 20 or 30 years. That should trouble all of us because we are not getting the value for money that the deals were supposed to be.

One of my concerns that I hope the Minister will address is that PF2 also pays little regard to the question of where the companies are situated and how much tax they pay. I have therefore tabled two amendments—in fact, three; one is about defining private finance companies—to understand what kind of deal we are getting from those companies and how we as taxpayers and those who represent taxpayers can get a better deal for the British public.

For the avoidance of doubt, the debate is not about not using private finance. One day, I hope that we will have another debate—I am sure the Minister will look forward to it as much as he is looking forward to this one—about the alternatives to private finance. There is a role for private finance, but the question is, if we are getting a bad deal and if the companies are not honouring the obligations that we as taxpayers assigned to them, what can we do about it?

Clearly, the PFI companies are making huge profit. Research from the Centre for Health and the Public Interest shows that over the next five years almost £1 billion in taxpayer funds will go to PFI companies in the form of pre-tax profits. That is 22% of the extra £4.5 billion given to the Department of Health alone.

In my constituency I see at first hand the impact of this. Whipps Cross University Hospital is technically in the constituency next door, but serves my local community—it is part of Barts, which has the biggest PFI contract in the country: £1 billion-worth of build, £7 billion to be repaid. The hospital is paying back £150 million a year in PFI charges, more than 50% of which is interest alone on the loan. The hospital downgraded the nurses’ post to try to save money, and so found that many nurses left. It therefore faced a higher agency bill.

It is clear that PFI and the cost of those loans drives problems. It is also clear that those companies make what I would term excessive profits. That is where new clause 1 begins to try to offer us some answers. If the companies make excessive profits, that is not part of the contract that we signed with them. The National Audit Office has been incredibly critical of how taxation played a role in decisions about private finance companies, but that has not been realised.

Also, not that many companies are involved, yet the tax returns are huge. Just eight companies own or appear to have equity stakes in 92% of all the PFI contracts in the NHS. Innisfree manages Barts, which is my local hospital, and it has just 25 staff but stands to make £18 billion over the coming years. It might be thought, therefore, that companies of that size and stature would pay a substantial amount of tax—I see that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar can predict where I am going with this; sadly, it does not appear to be the case.

Indeed, many of the companies seem to report little or no tax in the UK. One of the simple reasons for that is that many of them are not registered in the UK. That is crucial because the provisions in the Bill to give those companies a relief on paying tax on the interest that they get from shareholder debt are predicated on the idea that they are UK companies. That is the starting point for amendments 5 and 6. The Bill will bring in a cap on the amount of relief that companies can claim against interest. However, there is a public sector exemption, for public sector infrastructure companies, and it will substantially benefit the companies in question.

Having been a Member of this House for seven years, I have always assumed that when such a provision is introduced we will be able to debate its merits. I note that the restrictions in relation to the measure mean that we cannot stop it, or ask whether we are being wise and whether, given that we know the companies do not necessarily pay the tax it was assumed they would in the UK, we are getting their tax situation right. We cannot stop the measure, but we can certainly ask just how much the companies are going to benefit from it.

Amendments 5 and 6 are intended to enable taxpayers to understand how much the companies will benefit from the exemption, and how much extra money they will be able to write off against their tax bill, thus paying little tax in the future. It matters very much to the companies, because most are heavily indebted to their shareholders. They use a model involving 80% to 90% senior debt; the rest is equity loans in terms of the products that they offer. PF2 will change that very little. The amount of debt that they carry, and therefore the amount of interest that they can trade off, which the measure will allow them to do, will be relevant to their ability to give returns to their shareholders.

It is clear that those companies give their shareholders substantial returns, and will be able to fund that through such tax relief. Indeed, the shareholders’ returns are 28% on their sales—more than double the 12% to 15% that was predicted in the business cases. Between 2000 and 2016 the total value of sales of shares in PFI companies was £17 billion. It is notable that in 2016 100% of equity transactions involving those companies were to offshore infrastructure funds in Jersey, Guernsey and Luxembourg. That is based on a sample of 334 projects.

Those companies are going to get a substantial tax relief from the exemption. Yet they do not pay tax in the UK—or, certainly, there is a lot of evidence that they do not. It is an exemption that will enable them to continue to justify paying little or no tax; they will be able to write off the interest on their loans and projects against it. Yet taxpayers are not benefiting from the tax that they said they would pay.

New clause 1 goes to the heart of that question. Those companies signed up for public sector contracts, with particular rates of tax at the time they were finalised. Yet, as we know, corporation tax has varied substantially over the past decade. The debate is not about what the right level of corporation tax is; it is about a simple principle. If a company has signed up to pay a certain rate of tax, and the tax rate changes, it clearly benefits from that. We signed up to the deals for taxpayers, however, on the basis that they would pay a certain rate of tax. That tax rate will now change. New clause 1, again, asks just how much the companies are benefiting from the changes.

I know that the Minister will tell me that there are various anti-discriminatory clauses in the PFI and indeed the PF2 contracts. I agree with him. Therefore, how we might start to reclaim some of that excessive profit is a tricky question, but there is a strong case that, if a company has signed up in good faith to a particular rate of tax, surely that is the rate of tax that it should pay. That is written into the contract, it is part of the business case in the Green Book that is made on these sorts of deals. We as taxpayers have an expectation. Indeed, I would expect the Minister to have a series of sums reflecting the amount of money that would be paid back that he would write off against the large sums that I talked about. However, given that the corporation tax situation has moved from some of these companies nominally paying 28% to their paying 19% or less, that is clearly a substantial discount on what they were expected to pay. New clause 1 asks us to do what, frankly, at the moment we do not do as a country—understand what the difference is between what we expected to get in from tax from these companies and what we will get in.

It is always troubling to me that the Treasury does not seem to have a central database either of how much we were paying to take on these loans—particularly the rates of return, which we know are substantially higher than the rate of borrowing on the public sector—or of the taxation these companies are paying back versus what they were expected to pay back. New clause 1 would get to the heart of that matter and it sits alongside amendments 5 and 6 in trying to understand where these companies are making excessive profits from the public sector.

I am sure that the Minister will tell me that this is a dreadful attack on the private sector and that we should not be saying that these companies are ripping the British public off and that they are legal loan sharks. However, I ask him: if he will not accept the amendments, will he commit to gathering the data about how much these companies have paid in tax, how much difference these have made to the value-for-money case for these businesses, and therefore how our communities will be able to pay back the sums involved?

I am sure that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar would love to have £169 million to invest in his local community; there are many worthy causes that I am sure he would support. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden would be interested in the £170 million that I believe Stevenage, near his constituency, will have to pay out to PFI companies. That money could be invested in the public infrastructure that we so desperately need.

I am sure that all of us would agree that we expect these companies to pay their tax, as they signed up to in these contracts, yet it is clear that they do not. So if the Minister is not prepared to accept these incredibly reasonable amendments in this environment, I hope that he will set out precisely what he is going to do to get our tax money back. All of us and all of our constituents need and deserve nothing less.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

It is again a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Howarth.

I thank my hon. Friend for tabling the amendment, which seeks a review of the effect that the measures we are discussing will have on PFI companies. The Government blithely assert, including in their notes on the Bill, that companies involved in public benefit infrastructure spending are an inherently low risk for tax avoidance. That is an odd claim, especially in the light of what my hon. Friend has said. We know that some PFI companies have engaged in profit shifting to non-UK jurisdictions. It does not make sense to say that just because the profits of a company are extracted from public investment it cannot seek to be paid in a way that is fiscally undesirable.

No one should bemoan the huge public infrastructure investment that the last Labour Government enabled. It was fixing many of the problems left from years of neglect in the public sector. All Governments have taken part in PFI. When PFI was in effect the only game in town, so to speak, many public authorities took up the chance to make the investment they needed; my hon. Friend identified some in my constituency that benefited from such investment. However, we know that some contracts have produced excessive costs for the public sector, where direct borrowing could have produced much lower ongoing costs and provided for more direct influence over the quality of some ancillary services. Therefore, it is right that a review be used to work out whether we should be privileging PFI companies with exemptions from these measures at the same time as knowing that they often benefit from guaranteed profits at the public expense.

--- Later in debate ---

Schedule 5 introduces new rules that will restrict the ability of businesses to reduce their taxable profits through excessive UK interest expense. The rules are consistent with the UK’s wider policy to align the location of taxable profits with the location of economic activity and better reflect the global reality of modern business. Introducing the rules ensures that the UK upholds its commitment to timely and effective implementation of the OECD’s recommendations to make sure multinational corporations pay tax reflective of the business they carry out in this country. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Peter Dowd]

I do not think that the Minister has recognised the paradigm shift in the public’s view of PFI. In fact, Mr Howarth, as you know, in the area where we live there is a big debate at the moment about a significant infrastructure project, which is creating all sorts of tensions because of the implications of the way it is constructed. I am not criticising anybody, because all political parties—certainly the two main parties—have dipped their fingers, possibly even up to their shoulders, into PFI, so it is not a question of pointing a finger at anyone.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow eloquently and forensically identified some of the issues, and I thank her for that. However, things are moving on and we have to keep up with the tone outside in the country. People are becoming increasingly suspicious of PFI contracts. I know that we are not discussing the whole question of PFI. I completely accept that, but there is a question about the generality of the measure, to contextualise it. What we have here in the Bill is one of the most complex measures ever legislated for in Britain. Schedule 5 alone stretches to 157 pages of dense text, which is far longer than the entire length of the majority of Bills that we debate in Parliament, and I daresay is longer than the entire tax code of some jurisdictions. We have to take that into account; that is the context we are working in.

The length, of course, relates to the complexity of what the measure tries to achieve, but sometimes the complexity and length do not improve the operation of law. The excessive length of the existing tax code is well known. In reality we have in PFI, as identified in amendment 28, a range of services in the public sector: water, sewerage, gas and electricity, telecoms, railway facilities, roads, health facilities—referred to earlier—educational facilities, court and prison facilities, and waste processing facilities. We have moved beyond dealing with this as just a technical issue—it is a wider issue—but for today’s purposes we must identify how much those projects cost the taxpayer and how much of our tax take they denude us of.

The UK’s engagement in the OECD’s base erosion and profit shifting project, which the Minister referred to, will be welcome if it really does lead to the end of practices that have denuded Exchequers here and abroad of much needed receipts, but many people are not convinced about that. They genuinely are not convinced that PFI projects, which have been in operation for the best part of a quarter of a century, have given us the best value for money. There are deep concerns about the Exchequer being denuded of tax, especially when many of these projects, if not all of them, have the copper-bottomed guarantee of the British state. They are hardly the riskiest ventures in the world. In fact, they are probably some of the safest. We have to take that into account. There has been a shift in people’s attitude to PFI. We must recognise that things have moved on.

We certainly do not oppose the overall aim of reducing companies’ ability to shift profits through artificial interest charge arrangements—no one is suggesting that—but as I and others have said, there is a concern that those deeply complex measures and the many loopholes have already found their way into the minds of tax advisers and into the accounting practices of many corporations. I said to the Minister only the other day that we are here to guard the guards, and I know that he recognises that we are perfectly entitled to ask many questions.

The debate about PFI—the concept, the philosophy, the notion—will take place elsewhere. The shadow Chancellor mentioned it in his party conference speech. We will take the issue out to the public, but given the context we want to delve down, and one of the only ways that the Opposition have to delve down is to ask HMRC to report on the implications. Amendment 28 would do that.

[The Chair]

I am going to call the hon. Member for Walthamstow, who tabled two of the amendments. The hon. Member for Bootle cleverly managed to balance the context and the amendments, but we need speeches that, although they might refer to the context, actually speak to the amendments at hand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

No doubt all hon. Members support these measures, which will see more people, particularly children and young people, having the opportunity to access touring museum and gallery exhibitions and expand their educational horizons.

The United Kingdom leads the way with its diverse range of museums and galleries. It is estimated that there are 2,500 museums and galleries in the UK, which collectively receive more than 100 million visits a year. That is quite substantial. As you will know, Mr Howarth, some of the finest museums and galleries in the country are in our own city region: the Walker Art Gallery, the Atkinson, the Lady Lever, the Merseyside Maritime Museum, the World Museum, the International Slavery Museum, the Beatles Museum—the list goes on.

The huge impact the sector has on the economy cannot be discounted. According to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the culture sector accounts for 10% of GDP. Broadly speaking, £1 in every £1,000 in the UK economy is directly related to the museum and gallery sector, and there is a spend of more than £650 million a year.

The funding of museum and gallery exhibitions varies between national museums and the smaller independent museums. On average, national museums generate almost half of their own income, while the rest comes from the Government. Small independent museums are often fully funded by private donations, ticket sales and sponsorship. Most museums and gallery exhibitions are limited to large city centres, with a sizeable proportion in the capital. Domestically touring exhibitions allow the opportunity for people who would not otherwise have access to museums and galleries to see, visit and be in contact with them. We are fully behind the measures in schedule 6, which seek to support smaller companies that produce touring museum and gallery exhibitions and struggle to break even.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Minister. I assure him that I have nothing further to say about it.

[Peter Dowd]

Which is a shame, I have to say.

The Minister referred to consultation. Consultation about what we want to do in the future, what people would like to see from the relief and how it might operate is in advance of the implementation. We consult, and we think this or that is a good idea, but it is also important to find out whether the relief has had the effect that the consultation wanted to achieve. One of the only ways to establish whether the consultation and the implementation have been effective is a review, and that is what we seek. If we are to have these reliefs, we must review whether they are doing the job they are supposed to do. The amendment is fairly simple in that regard.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I support what my hon. Friend said, and I hope Members will support the amendment and that it will be successful. I have a brief comment to make.

In my ideal world, we would fund museums and the rich cultural heritage we have not through tax reliefs but by direct funding. We would collect all the tax and then pay it to museums and galleries directly through local authority and national funding and by specific grants where necessary. There would, of course, be charitable and private donations as well, but the great bulk of it would be in the public sector. I hope we can look towards a world where we have direct public funding, rather than a complex jungle of tax reliefs, and collect all the tax and forget about the tax reliefs.

[Mel Stride]

I thank Opposition Members for their contributions. The hon. Member for Bootle calls once again for a review. We seem to be having a review-fest. Of course, there are always some arguments for having a review, but the critical thing is whether it is proportionate and sensible, given the measures we are taking on consultation. We will, of course, keep all these issues and the concerns he raised about the possible misuse of the provisions for the purposes of tax avoidance closely under review.

[Peter Dowd]

I understand where the Minister is coming from in his reference to a review-fest. I referred earlier to the size of the Bill, which is one of the longest Finance Bills in the history of Parliament. Given that the Government have started the festival off with the size of the Bill, we are perfectly entitled to a festival on reviews of that huge Bill. I am sure the Minister agrees with that.

[The Chair]

I do not think we want to get bogged down in the length of the Bill itself, but should rather confine ourselves to the amendments.

Finance Bill (Fourth sitting)

Peter Dowd Excerpts

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

That schedule 8 be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.

Clause 30 stand part.

Clause 31 stand part.

That schedule 9 be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.

Clause 32 stand part.

New clause 3—Deemed domicile: review of protection of overseas trusts—

“(1) Within fifteen months of the passing of this Act, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shall complete a review about the operation of the provisions for the protection of overseas trusts in relation to deemed domicile.

(2) The review shall in particular consider—

(a) the effects of those provisions on the Exchequer,

(b) the behavioural effects of those provisions, and

(c) the effects on the matters specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) if those provisions were repealed.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “the provisions for the protection of overseas trusts” means the provisions inserted by paragraphs 18 to 38 and 40 of Schedule 8 to this Act.

(4) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay a report of the review under this section before the House of Commons within three months of its completion.”

This new clause requires a review to be undertaken of the effects of the provisions for protecting overseas trusts from the new provisions in relation to deemed domicile.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to work under your stewardship, Mr Walker, and your perfect pronunciation of the word “schedule”.

I would like to deal with the Government’s overall intention behind this group of clauses and schedules reforming non-domiciled status. Under the measures being introduced through the Bill, an individual who has been resident in the UK for 15 out of the last 20 years will be considered UK-domiciled for the purposes of income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax. From appearances, one might think that overall the Government are finally doing away with non-dom status, but that is far from fact.

The changes in the measures are superficial—one could even say artificial—and designed to give the impression that the Government are seriously clamping down on tax avoidance. Why else would an exemption be built into the measures for offshore trusts? Another question is: why else would the Government have given a grace period for those non-doms affected to get an offshore trust if they do not have one already? Another question begging for an answer is: why else would the Government have actively signposted the changes for non-doms, which has set hares running? It seems to me that those are things that the architect of the measures would do if they were of a mind to completely undermine the measures’ effectiveness. They close one loophole and—hey presto!—create another. Put a new coat of paint on it and no one will notice—job done.

I of course accept that some people will be caught by the changes, but I imagine that it will be the few—and “few” is the operative word—who cannot afford the financial advice fees and legal fees to set up an offshore trust. Once again, we are talking about low-hanging fruit. In my opinion and that of some of my colleagues, this is indicative of the Government’s tax policy. They are doing this rather than tackling tax avoidance undertaken by wealthy individuals who are—I will mix my rodent analogies here—squirrelling their money away in offshore trusts, or large multinational corporations that play cat and mouse with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, with, in this situation, HMRC being the mouse and the one that rarely roars to boot. It is happening daily: certain people are not paying their fair share, and the Government are instead attempting to squeeze further taxes out of everyone else. That is no doubt motivated in part by the dwindling resources of HMRC, whose staff levels have been cut by 17% since 2010. The shame that HMRC does not have the resources to clamp down on the use of offshore trusts is part of the motivation behind these measures, but I am not convinced that the Government have the inclination to do so, either.

The delayed timetabling of the measures will also have an impact on their effectiveness. They were first proposed in the summer Budget 2015, they were consulted on in late 2016, and they were meant to be debated and come into effect in March 2017. Of course, we had an unnecessary snap election, whose mother was hubris and whose father turned out to be pyrrhic. As Plutarch noted—it is always worthwhile getting in a quote from Plutarch:

“If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined.”

I ask Government Members opposite to bear that in mind when the next election comes.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

And in Latin?

[Peter Dowd]

I actually was going to bring that, but the Chair has difficulty enough pronouncing English to check me on my Latin.

Added to that, we had a zombie Parliament throughout the summer, with the Minister announcing that the measures would not be brought back until September. In total, that means that the best-advised non-doms will have had two years’ advance notice, while even those with little to no advice would have had seven months to prepare, even without the Government’s grace period. That is why the Opposition are proposing that, at the very least, the Government conduct—the Minister will not be surprised to hear this—a review to assess the impact of leaving in the exemption for offshore trusts on the effectiveness of the measures.

Our opposition to these measures is well noted. I raised concerns over them on Second Reading of the Finance Act 2017. We raised them further in private discussions with the Government, to no avail, as well as during the Ways and Means resolutions debate and on Second Reading of the Bill, so our view is fairly well laid out. What we want is genuinely not unrealistic or far removed from the observations of most members of the public, which is, in short, the removal of the exemption for offshore trusts from these clauses and schedules. It is simply lubricious—I was thinking of another word—to introduce measures abolishing non-dom status while at the same time creating further loopholes. I would have used “disingenuous”, but no doubt you would have ruled me out of order, Mr Walker.

I ask the Minister once more, as I have at every stage of the Bill, to remove the exemption for offshore trusts. If the Government are truly committed to abolishing non-dom status and not just paying lip service to it, the Minister should have no problem doing so.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that creating this loophole, which enables non-domiciled individuals who are coming back into UK domicile to simply send funds to offshore trusts, creates work for accountants and tax specialists without actually assisting the Treasury or the Government?

[Peter Dowd]

That is a very good point. It is also actually creating an awful lot of work for us, given the amount of times we have asked for this to be dealt with. It is getting pretty repetitive. I do not know how many times we have to ask for this to be dealt with once and for all; no doubt we will come back to it time and again until something is sorted out.

This is not only about non-doms using offshore trusts to hide their money and essentially subvert the measures in the clause; it is about the source of the money and its value, particularly when we are discussing how to clamp down on tax avoidance. The Government should consider a register of offshore trusts, ensuring that non-doms have to register the sources of their property and income. Again, that request is not unreasonable to the public or to our constituents who elect and send us to this place, all of whom have to register the sources of their income with HMRC. In fact, a number of the measures in the Bill will require even more financial information to be passed on to HMRC through the bulk collection of financial data by third parties. It seems to many people that there is one law for one group and another for the rest of us. That cannot be right.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The issue of non-dom taxation has been going on for years. The reality is that Conservative Governments and perhaps even Labour Governments have not gone far enough to eliminate the problem by saying that these people are going to pay tax properly and not wriggle all the time. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have to get rid of a world where rich people live in Monaco in the south of France and fly in a couple of times a week in their private planes, working in the City and making billions, just to avoid tax, and that we should be making sure they pay their taxes and be looking after ordinary people?

[Peter Dowd]

What we need is a fair taxation system—that is the key. I do not think it is beyond the wit of this Government or any Government, for that matter, to deal with that. That is not to say that we have not moved some. That would not be appropriate. We have moved on.

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

In terms of having moved some, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, does he accept that with the current proposals we have gone much further in the direction he seeks than was the case under any previous Labour Government?

[Peter Dowd]

It is a moving feast. Dealing with tax avoidance is—to use the old hackneyed phrase—a process, not an event. That process, at different times over the decades, moves along at different paces and with varying levels of enthusiasm. We have to set the tone and send the message from this place that we will tackle tax avoidance wherever we see it occurring. We should all do that as robustly as we can. It is not a beauty contest between which party has done the most. The reality is that we all have to stick together in tackling tax avoidance. That is the reason for our proposal, which would move this process further on, regardless of what may or may not have happened in the past.

The contention between the Opposition and the Government on this part of the Bill highlights a fundamental problem with parliamentary procedure around financial legislation. Some argue—I do not necessarily agree—that it is ludicrous that the Government can introduce a measure that claims to abolish non-dom status with an exemption for offshore trusts, and that the Opposition are unable to push through an amendment that would remove it. That goes back to the point I made earlier when the Minister referred to a review-fest. That is one of the only tools the Opposition have in this situation, given the nature of proceedings.

I do not criticise that at all. We are where we are. It would be better if we were not here, in some regards, but we are. We are trying, with the tools available to us, to move the debate on. I understand the limited scope that the Opposition have to amend financial legislation, particularly on bringing more people into tax or raising revenue. That may have to be looked at, especially in the light of the Minister’s concern that we are partying too much on this issue.

[Ruth George]

Given that the only reason for a trust going offshore seems to be to engage a lower rate of taxation, will my hon. Friend join me in asking the Minister what the reasons are for the exemption for offshore trusts and for opposing listing those offshore trusts to ensure we have greater transparency in our tax system?

[Peter Dowd]

That is a fair point. I will hang on every word the Minister says when he explains that today; he will have my full attention and concentration.

The convention of the limit on parliamentary scrutiny, particularly at a time when the Government do not have a parliamentary majority, risks enfeebling the Opposition by denying us the ability to properly scrutinise the Government and their financial legislation—essentially, the ability to do our job. Here we are, with a limited armoury, and that is why we are asking for a review. It is important that this is as transparent and open as possible. This is the line I bring to the Committee and have put to the House a number of times: it is not a question of us, the Opposition, guarding the guards; it is a question of the public guarding the guards. That is why we have tabled this measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

If the hon. Lady will let me make a little progress, perhaps we will have time later.

Another point the hon. Member for Bootle raised was the suggestion that we are somehow slack or not concerned about tax avoidance. This Government have clamped down on avoidance to the extent that we have brought in £160 billion in revenue by clamping down on tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance. We have done that despite his constant assertions that HMRC is under-resourced and incapable of acting. We are bringing in record levels of compliance income at the moment.

[Peter Dowd]

I think the Minister misrepresents what I was saying. I was trying to say that we need to push harder. The reality is that HMRC does as good a job as it possibly can given its resource. I suspect that if its resource were returned to the previous level, HMRC would do an even better job.

[Mel Stride]

Given the resource that HMRC has, which the hon. Gentleman suggests is inadequate, the tax gap—the amount of tax that we have failed to collect by not bearing down on avoidance—is at its lowest level for many, many years, including every year under the last Government. It is 6.5% compared with, I think, 8.3% in 2005-06. In terms of bearing down on avoidance, we are doing our bit.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Peter Dowd]

In the light of what has been said today, we may want to tease out the matter of non-doms further at a later date, but let us be clear: there is nothing wrong with being a non-dom. It is not an illness or a disease. It is not something that we want to eradicate absolutely. We do not want to tell non-doms to go home or to go back to where they lived. This is not about that; it is about fairness in comparison with people who are not non-doms. That is what it comes down to.

We recognise that non-doms contribute to our economy. I do not think that anyone is denying that at all. Non-doms have existed in this country since Napoleonic times, in effect. That is the essence of their origin. After 200 years, we might think, notwithstanding the fact that we are coming out of Europe, that we should have done something about them sooner. The bottom line is that there is nothing wrong with being a non-dom. There are issues vis-à-vis the status of parents of non-doms, too, which we will no doubt come back to in due course.

We have made our point for today’s purposes. As I alluded to, new clause 3 seeks to have a review in relation to non-doms. I do not think that there is anything wrong with asking for a review of how this proposal will work. That is our job, and we will persist with it. We are determined to raise this issue time and again.

[The Chair]

The Committee will be aware that new clause 3 will be moved later. I do not want anybody to feel disappointed or cheated.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 8 agreed to.

Clauses 30 and 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 9 agreed to.

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33

Inheritance tax on overseas property representing UK residential property

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

Finance Bill (Fifth sitting)

Peter Dowd Excerpts

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 49 to 55 stand part.

That schedule 13 be the Thirteenth schedule to the Bill.

Clauses 56 to 59 stand part.

New clause 5—Annual report on powers in relation to third country goods fulfilment businesses—

‘(1) The Commissioners must prepare a report on the operation of the provisions of Part 3 of this Act in relation to each tax year after their commencement within six months after the completion of that tax year.

(2) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay a report under subsection (1) before the House of Commons.

(3) Each report under subsection (1) shall cover in particular—

(a) prosecutions for an offence under section 53,

(b) penalties imposed under Schedule 13,

(c) the effects on the operation of Part 3 of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union or (as the case may be) preparations for that withdrawal,

(d) implications of the matters specified in sub-paragraph (c) for the activities and resource requirements of HMRC in connection with the provisions of this Part,

(e) implications of the matters specified in sub-paragraph (c) for the exercise of the powers to make regulations under Part 3, and

(f) HMRC’s assessment of the extent to which the operation of, or changes to the operation of, comparable provisions in other countries affect businesses in the United Kingdom.’

This new clause requires HMRC to produce an annual report on the operation of Part 3 relating to third party goods fulfilment businesses and specifies some of the information to be included in that annual report.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Howarth.

I want to talk about fulfilment businesses in part 3, clauses 48 to 59, and the annual report on powers in relation to third-party goods fulfilment businesses, or new clause 5. I will speak a little about the fulfilment business measures before addressing the specifics of our new clause.

We welcome the action and powers for HMRC to deal with the problems created by the difficulty in properly taxing and charging VAT on the profusion of small businesses trading online through platforms such as Amazon. They are not just problems for the Exchequer. Many small businesses find themselves outcompeted and outpriced by overseas traders, which not only have lower operating costs but artificially lower their prices by failing to pay VAT on the goods they sell to UK consumers through fulfilment houses based here. It is essential that we act to protect both the taxpayer in general and the thousands of small British businesses that are, as we have discussed, the lifeblood of our economy.

It is not just lower prices and running costs that present problems for our small businesses. I have dealt with casework from small businesses that found themselves severely disadvantaged when filling out their VAT returns when they were unable to obtain VAT receipts from either their overseas supplier or the fulfilment business in question. In one case, the reason for the problem was simple: there were no VAT receipts because the seller had not charged VAT, unbeknownst to that particular British business. The online fulfilment house involved simply washed its hands of the matter and blamed a third-party seller that it supposedly has no control or influence over. It is right that we bring our laws up to date and ask the huge online fulfilment businesses to take their responsibilities to our society seriously, assist the Exchequer in levying the proper taxes and stop hiding behind the excuse of separate businesses.

Many of the overseas sellers we are talking about could not and would not exist were it not for online retailing sites and the fulfilment services they provide. The business models are entirely based on the mode of operation laid down by the multinational online marketplace, which makes their businesses possible. Action has been too slow to deal with these problems, which have festered for far too long, but better late than never. We do not seek to hinder action on this at all and we welcome the broad sweep of these measures and other related efforts to address the problems that have grown up from online marketplaces and fulfilment houses.

New clause 5 seeks another review—this time on an annual basis—examining the working of these new powers and responsibilities so that Parliament can keep a check and a close eye on the problems around fulfilment businesses. It is an expanding market and business sector, and we have to try to keep up with it. We hope that the new clause will prevent any future problems from festering too long and ensure that Her Majesty’s Treasury keeps a close eye on changing business practices in this field, which might threaten the Exchequer or, importantly, undermine small businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

Yes, that is the concern. There is a lot of evidence that the exemption, which lets staff run their own tips scheme—it is like staff in a small café sharing the money in the jar, but across a large restaurant chain—is being used by major employers to avoid paying national insurance and, indeed, pension obligations further down the line, especially given auto-enrolment.

Another issue to which the amendments relate is the variations in charges that employers apply to employees for administering such schemes. Some restaurant chains will pass on 100% of the tips paid to a member of staff, while others will charge up to 20% in administration fees for doing it through an electronic system. Clearly, that is not fair and I warrant that customers have never had a restaurant explain to them how much they will charge the employee to pass on the tip that customers want to give them. The amendments are designed to help us understand what is going on.

I hope that the Minister will have strong words with his colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, because if, as we fear, a tax take is being avoided and the lowest-paid people in our country are being exploited as a result, surely we all agree that we need to do something about that. That is why I tabled the amendments. Indeed, 18 months ago, many of us took part in a Government consultation on precisely those issues—that is, how to ensure a fair system for administering tips, service charges and gratuities. I have to tell the Minister that, 18 months on, the Government have not even published the results of that consultation, let alone looked at what could be done to make sure that neither the Exchequer nor the employer is being short-changed.

The Bill offers the Minister an opportunity to make progress on an issue that his ministerial colleagues have kicked into the long grass. If we are digitising records, we can ask employers to clarify precisely what is being collected in tips, service charges and gratuities, and what is income. The amendments address exactly that point: they simply propose that an employer should record the different forms of income—with electronic systems that should be a relatively easy thing to do—and an employee would then be able to access that information.

That is important because if someone is self-employed and working in restaurants—my colleagues from north of the border have mentioned people administering their own tax records—they ought to know what their liabilities are. At present, however, someone who is part of a tronc system does not necessarily know what they are being paid in tips, gratuities and service charges. These simple amendments ask the employer to set out precisely the different streams of income, which their computer systems will easily collate for them, so that our tax system acts more efficiently.

If the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendments and acknowledge the need to make progress—we are, after all, talking about the poorest-paid employees in our country—will he commit to asking his ministerial colleagues in BEIS why it is that, 18 months on, when so many people have provided information about how we could solve the problems, nothing has happened? Indeed, I have regularly asked when the consultation results might at least be published, but the answer has always been, “Sometime in the future.” I am sure that the Minister would agree that the people who serve him a cup of coffee in a restaurant deserve better service from us in making sure that they are not exploited.

Amendment 10 relates to an issue that has come up very little in this Committee—we should correct that—namely the Japanese knotweed that is Brexit, which has taken up so much of our time. I appreciate that the Minister will say that the amendment is not needed because he has published a White Paper on how customs and VAT should fit together. However, having read that White Paper, I must draw attention to an omission from it.

I am sure that Government Members will judge me because I have become slightly obsessed with things such as the 13th directive on VAT, and I am sure they would all like to do a pub quiz on it too. Normal VAT rules allow that businesses registered in the UK can recover UK VAT. People understand that: for most businesses, VAT compliance is one of their biggest pieces of work. The issue with the 13th directive, which the amendment addresses, is the question of what happens when businesses trade in Europe. After all, Europe is still the primary market for the vast majority of businesses: 63% of members of the Federation of Small Businesses have said that Europe is their priority market. That means that if a salesman goes to Sweden and stays in a hotel, the hotel might charge VAT and there is no way that that business would be able to deduct Swedish VAT on its UK VAT return. At the moment, however, under the single market procedures, there is a process by which foreign VAT can be recovered directly from the country in which it was incurred.

For those Members who are VAT geeks, that provision is in articles 170 and 171 of Council directive 2006/112/EC, the prime VAT directive. I will, of course, pass that detail on to Hansard. The detailed rules are in Council directive 2008/9/EC. That is implemented in our own domestic legislation, in section 39 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and regulation 20 of the Value Added Tax Regulations 1995. In practice, that means that each European state is obligated to make a VAT refund. Obviously, there are rules on that, but it works pretty straightforwardly through an online electronic system, which is why it is relevant to the charge under discussion. I can see the Whip wondering where I am going with this, but there is a direct connection.

A similar scheme applies across the EU to businesses that are not established in the EU. That is the 13th VAT directive, which is implemented by section 39(2)(b) of the 1994 Act and is a more complicated system. The amendment is simple. When we leave the EU, we will no longer be able to rely on the simplicity of the intra-country VAT collection scheme that has helped businesses in Britain to trade and provide services, particularly in Europe. We will, therefore, need to move to the 13th directive, or we may move to something else. The customs White Paper, for instance, mentions an “innovative” scheme, but I am pretty sure that other countries, for which the intra-country scheme works well, would not be particularly willing to undertake such innovation. I think they would be happy for us to move to the 13th directive.

I am concerned that there is a lot of evidence that the 13th directive and its administration is not very effective for countries outside the EU. In particular, the 13th directive states that member states must refund VAT to foreign traders. It also states:

“Member states may make the refunds…conditional upon the granting by third states of comparable advantages regarding turnover and taxes.”

One could argue that the Bill’s introduction of an online electronic system provides a comparable advantage, but my amendment asks the simple question being asked by many businesses, including local businesses in my constituency, which are starting to panic about how they will manage their VAT returns in future. How will the proposed electronic scheme fit in with regard to both the current regulations relating to intra-EU VAT refunds and the 13th directive?

Having looked at the Minister’s document, I am concerned that, although it talks a lot about what the UK will do, it does not talk a lot about the 13th directive and what it will mean for British businesses. Page 19 refers to contingency in case there is no deal—of course, we all know that that is a sensitive question for the Cabinet—but what British businesses need to know now is, if they are going to continue to trade in Europe, how they can do that in a cost-effective and red-tape-free way?

One of the more bizarre elements of Brexit is that we seem to be arguing about red tape as though the other side wants more of it, and those of us who wanted to stay in the European Union are bad for wanting less of it. This issue is a great example of that challenge, where being part of the European Union had simplified a process for British businesses. A quarter of FSB members have said that the introduction of any tariff or complication with trading with Europe would put them off trading altogether. We need this Bill to match what is going to happen in future, so that businesses using an online system will not have to change it very quickly as a result of the rules of the 13th directive implemented by other countries making it harder for them to use.

If the Minister will not accept my very simple amendment asking him to set out just how this Bill will impact on the 13th directive, will he commit to discussing with British businesses what the directive might mean for them in terms of VAT compliance and recouping their costs, and what the consequences for them will be in terms of administering the scheme? All small businesses in our constituencies that are looking at that future trading relationship will want to know how much additional paperwork they are going to get, and they deserve an answer.

[Peter Dowd]

I will to speak to clauses 60 and 61, schedule 14 and clause 62 together, as they represent a package of measures that would introduce powers and regulations surrounding digital reporting and record keeping for both VAT and income tax.

The Opposition’s concerns about the Government’s plans for making tax digital are well-versed. We raised them on Second Reading of the March Finance Bill, before they were dropped, and raised them again in the debate on the Ways and Means resolution for this Bill, as well as on its Second Reading. We fully support digitalised tax reporting, which we can all agree has the potential to drastically reduce the amount of time individuals and business owners will have to spend filling out long and complicated tax returns. We could also free up some of HMRC’s time, so that it is better spent clamping down on tax avoidance.

Finance Bill (Sixth sitting)

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We come to the dénouement of the Finance Bill in Committee. I hope the Government Whip liked my use of English—very evocative. I call Peter Dowd to move amendment 43.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 69, page 91, line 16, at end insert—

“(1A) In Schedule 23 to FA 2011, after paragraph 65, insert—

‘66 (1) No later than 30 September 2020, the Commissioner shall undertake a review of the exercise of the powers under this Schedule in relation to relevant data holders specified in paragraph 13D.

(2) The review shall consider in particular the number of appeals in relation to Data-holder Notices.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay a report of a review under this paragraph before the House of Commons within one month of its completion.’”

This amendment would require HMRC to review the exercise of its data-gathering powers in relation to money service businesses.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 69 stand part.

[Peter Dowd]

It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Walker, notwithstanding the fact that you have just stolen my joke. I asked my daughter, who studied French, what the French for “dénouement” and “ambience” was, but she did not find that very amusing.

Clause 69 extends bulk data-gathering powers, which were given to HMRC in the Finance Act 2011, to money service businesses such as Western Union. The clause continues the Government’s plans to rapidly expand HMRC’s powers to collect bulk data from third parties. In the Finance Acts of 2011, 2013 and 2016, the powers were extended to merchant acquirers, and in 2016 they were extended to, to collect bulk data from providers of electronic stored-value payment services, also known as digital wallet transactions.

The powers are part of the Government’s strategy to tackle the hidden economy and reduce the tax gap. All Members agree that people operating within the hidden economy evade tax and gain an unfair competitive advantage over law-abiding, tax-paying individuals and businesses. Under anti-money laundering legislation, money service businesses are already required to conduct due diligence checks on customers, in certain circumstances at least. HMRC supervises the majority of money service businesses for compliance with that legislation, so it can request limited information from them as part of its supervision for anti-money laundering purposes. It can also use any information obtained for tax compliance purposes but cannot currently request that information with the original intention of checking the tax position of their customers. This clause would change that by requiring money service businesses to become data holders, to collect data from their users, and to pass that data on to HMRC when requested.

It is important to be clear about how a money service business would hand over a customer’s data to HMRC. First, HMRC would issue a notice to the data holder requiring it to provide HMRC with information. The data holder can respond and, if it rejects the notice, can appeal to the tribunal. The tribunal then makes its ruling. Under these provisions, any money service business that does not comply will be issued with a financial penalty. Similarly, HMRC has the power under this measure to apply directly to a tribunal for approval at a hearing without notice being given to the data holder—effectively going over its head.

At no point in the process is the individual or the business who used the money service business and whose information is being passed to HMRC notified, as I understand it. It seems that the clause is not open to individual appeal at any point in the judicial process. In fact, it rests solely on the shoulders of the money service business to appeal when necessary.

The Opposition fully support measures to clamp down on the hidden economy—on individuals and on businesses using unsavoury and slippery practices to avoid paying their fair share of tax—but we are talking about third parties collecting massive amounts of data to hand over to HMRC. Money service businesses are effectively being asked to pick up the slack for HMRC, which, in our view, is increasingly underfunded and under-resourced. I have said it before, and I will say it again: Government statistics show that since 2010, there has been a 17% reduction in HMRC staffing levels. The Minister needs to address the resources available to HMRC to crack down on the hidden economy. It appears that once again the Government are ambitious in the powers they wish to give themselves—through the back door, some would say—but not so enthusiastic about funding and resourcing their commitments.

The Minister will be aware that although most money service businesses keep records of due diligence checks on customers, they do not have the time—or, I suspect, the inclination—for the pretty onerous task of sifting through the data to provide HMRC with individual records. I therefore find it unlikely that they would refuse or appeal a notice, which is the supposed judicial check on this broad, sweeping power. What does the Minister think is a reasonable notice period for a money service business to process and respond to HMRC? Does he accept that there may be hidden costs for money service businesses that have to comply with these measures?

In the Government’s consultation, there was much debate about the substance of the information that would be transferred between money service businesses and HMRC. According to the Information Commissioner’s Office,

“it is clear that some of the information that may be provided to HMRC for the purposes of extending data gathering powers to money service businesses will constitute personal data in instances where the customer is an individual, a sole trader or a partnership… It will therefore be an important data protection obligation for the MSBs under the scope of the proposed legislation to provide their customers with privacy notices… The minimisation of the collection of personal data of individual consumers is an important privacy protection principle in financial transactions.”

I suspect the Minister will need to consider those concerns as part of a wider discussion about the scope of HMRC’s powers.

The privacy group Liberty has raised concerns that the practice of bulk data surveillance is suspicionless surveillance and constitutes a disproportionate interference with article 8 of the European convention on human rights, as enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998: the right to respect for private and family life. Liberty’s concern is that bulk data surveillance inverts the traditional relationship between suspicion and surveillance that exists in UK law, because suspicion comes first to justify subsequent surveillance.

In the light of these concerns, our amendment calls for a review of the exercise of schedule 23 powers, with a particular emphasis on how they relate to data protection. The Government have the right to ensure that HMRC has the necessary powers to tackle the hidden economy, but they are also obliged to ensure proper judicial oversight and the protection of people’s rights.

I am reaching my dénouement. The Minister’s case for new bulk data-gathering powers rests on the need for third parties to help HMRC to catch customers who participate in the hidden economy, which costs the Treasury £6.2 billion a year, as I recall. However, he has rejected our attempts to introduce a register for offshore trusts, our calls to crack down on tax avoidance by removing the exemption for offshore trusts in the Government’s deemed domicile proposals, and any meaningful attempt to bring transparency and accountability to non-doms who abuse the UK tax system. I will not call it a double standard; that is not a fair assessment.

However, the Government are demanding all this information from money service businesses customers to ensure that they are not participating in the hidden economy—yet at the same time rejecting any sort of information being held on offshore trusts, which are used to shelter hundreds of billions from the UK Exchequer. As I said last week, there needs to be careful consideration of the balance between individual liberty and the powers of the state. Over the past few years, we have seen multiple Finance Bills whereby Government give HMRC sweeping data-gathering powers, from merchant banking to digital wallets. I believe there is a rational concern that though these powers can tackle criminality, they can also impede an individual’s right to privacy. Any Government need to ensure that the balance is struck fairly and proportionately—and we are not convinced that this does so. Otherwise, there is a real fear that, increasingly, only those who can afford to secure their financial privacy, or to shelter and shield their wealth and financial transactions from the state, will have any privacy. The Government should give more thought to that.

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

It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Mr Walker.

Clause 69 will extend HMRC’s data-gathering powers to money service businesses, allowing it to better identify and take action against businesses and individuals operating in the hidden economy. Money service businesses, or MSBs, are entities that provide money transmission, cheque cashing, or currency exchange services. They provide valuable financial services that are relied upon by many tax-compliant customers. However, these services are vulnerable to exploitation by those who want to disguise their income. Under the clause, data provided by MSBs to HMRC will allow HMRC to better identify non-compliant customers who are exploiting MSB services to hide their income and operate in the hidden economy.

The hidden economy is made up of those businesses that fail to register for tax, and individuals who fail to declare a source of income that should be taxed. By hiding their activity from HMRC, those operating in the hidden economy deprive the Government of vital funds to run public services. That places an unfair burden on the vast majority of people and businesses who pay their fair share of tax. Hidden economic activity also disadvantages compliant businesses. HMRC’s operational experience shows that non-compliant businesses and individuals can exploit the services offered by MSBs to disguise or dispose of undeclared income. They can do this, for example, by cashing a cheque for undeclared work. HMRC’s data-gathering powers allow it to collect data from certain third parties. Following public consultation and a Government response in 2016, the clause extends those powers to MSBs. It does that by introducing MSBs as a new category of data holder from whom HMRC may require data. MSBs are defined under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017.

“Credit institutions”, or, practically, banks and building societies, are excluded. The term MSB is generally taken to mean a business that provides money transmission, cheque cashing or currency exchange services without transacting through a bank account or providing general banking services. The clause is intended to cover those businesses. Supporting regulations will be made at Royal Assent, using an existing power to make regulations contained in schedule 23 of the Finance Act 2011. Those will provide detail of the types of data that can be requested. A draft of the regulations was published for consultation last year and regulations will subsequently be laid before the House, subject to the negative resolution procedure. The clause does not impose any additional record-keeping requirements on MSBs. HMRC cannot request data that an MSB does not hold. That is an important point and relates to the concern raised by the hon. Member for Bootle.

HMRC will work collaboratively with MSBs to minimise the administrative burden of complying with the new law. MSBs can appeal against a data notice issued by HMRC on the grounds that it is unduly onerous, or if they consider that the notice asks for data that is outside the scope of relevant regulations. HMRC can request data necessary to detect and quantify hidden economy tax risks. That includes information needed to identify an MSB’s customers and records that the MSB is required to keep under money laundering regulations. It also includes data about aggregate customer transactions. HMRC will not request data on individual transactions.

The hon. Member for Bootle raised an important point—what data can HMRC request under these provisions? The answer is aggregated data, which will not include data on the value of individual transactions made by customers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

To reply briefly to the hon. Gentleman’s point: the issue of MSB ownership and state involvement is probably slightly beyond the scope of this Bill, but his points are noted. If he continues to work very hard, who knows what might happen? Much to our horror and dread, the state may end up owning just about everything in this country, if he and his merry men and women have their way.

[Peter Dowd]

I have accepted previous assurances provided by the Minister and we have withdrawn amendments appropriately, in good faith and good spirit. The issue under discussion goes beyond the technicalities and reaches into the very nature of a state that does not interfere in people’s affairs where it has no business to do so. That is not to say that the state has no business interfering; it does so with tax collection, which helps maintain the balance of society. It would not be appropriate for me to withdraw the amendment, because I think that many members of the Committee would like to err on the side of caution and accept it, even though they will not do so. We will therefore leave it hanging and I have no doubt that we will return to the issue of privacy at a future date.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

Mr Walker, having rocketed through this Bill, efficiently and I think in near-record time, it is only right that I say “thank you” to all those who have made our rapid progress possible. I start with yourself, Mr Walker. I thank you for your patience, good humour and of course for teaching us the right pronunciation of “schedule”. I also thank your co-Chair, Mr Howarth, for his sagacity, which is unrivalled on the Panel of Chairs, with perhaps the exception of yourself, Mr Walker.

I thank all members of the Committee. I thank Opposition Members for their pursuit of their duty of scrutiny of the Bill, although ultimately they were, rather pleasingly, unsuccessful in all the Divisions that we have had. However, we will not hold that against them; they did their job very thoroughly and very effectively indeed. I want to particularly and personally thank the hon. Members for Bootle, for Oxford East and for Aberdeen North for the very good-natured and decent way in which they have dealt with me personally and all the Government Members of the Committee; and, yes, I want to thank the hon. Member for Walthamstow as well, from the bottom of my heart. I genuinely respect her eloquence and determination, and I have enjoyed the mental contortions that she has put me through during the Committee.

I thank the Government Members of the Committee. Their contributions were slightly limited, but when they came they were of a quality that was unrivalled and unparalleled in the history of Committees. I thank the Whips on both sides: my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness and the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington. As a former Whip, I know that often they are in the background but what they do really matters and they have ensured that this Committee has run in a very efficient and effective manner.

I thank those who gave evidence to the Committee, the Clerks, Hansard and the Doorkeepers. Most especially, I thank my own officials at the Treasury and HMRC, who in the short time that I have been a Minister have impressed me immensely with their knowledge, guidance and overall their patience and kindness towards me, in many, many hours of trying to explain what has been an extremely technical Bill.

Finally, on a personal note, if I might be indulged, I thank my two young daughters, Ophelia and Evelyn, who, in the last couple of weeks, while their father grappled in his dreams with this highly technical Bill, managed to stay out of their mother and father’s bed and to give them some sleep.

I look forward to Report. Of course, as someone has already mentioned, we have the delights of a further Finance Bill after the Budget, which I know we can hardly wait for.

[Peter Dowd]

May I completely concur with the sentiments of the Minister? I thank all my colleagues and Government Members for their patience and forbearance. I will just leave on this note because I am quite stunned: I have visions of the Minister grappling in bed. [Laughter.] Best to leave it on that note.

[Mel Stride]

On that, we can all agree.