Public Sector Pay

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Stringer. Let me welcome Mr Dave Prentis, general secretary of Unison, who is sitting at the back of the room. His blood must be boiling at the complete lack of interest from the Conservative party in this debate. As a trade unionist for many years and someone who worked in the public sector, either in local government or in the NHS, I say that my heart goes out to those people who cannot afford to live despite the amount of work that they put in and their absolute commitment to public services.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for achieving this debate, because we have been able to get a good feel for the situation and how our public sector workers are suffering out there. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) mentioned that the Police Federation had said that the Prime Minister was completely out of touch. That goes to the heart of one of the points that I want to make, but first I thank the 150,000 people who signed the petition—who took the time to put their name down. I thank them very much for that, and the trade unions that were backing the petition.

The Prime Minister is indeed out of touch with reality. The Police Federation was spot on about that. I will now ask people to use their imagination; I know it is a big ask for people to use their imagination in relation to the way the Prime Minister operates, but let me try to take them through it. Let us imagine that she is sitting there, with a smile on her face, reading the latest position paper from the Secretary of State for Health. All is well. The public services are well funded and the NHS is in rude health. The staff are all paid well; in fact, some of them are paid too much. There are no waiting lists for operations to speak of, or queues to see a GP. It gets better, in the Prime Minister’s mind. The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy reports that virtually everyone is in a secure, well-paid job, that the need for a national living wage is, for all intents and purposes, a thing of the past and that investment in our infrastructure is at historic highs. Of course the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, in the mind of the Prime Minister, reports that virtually the final brick for the 400,000th house to be built this year has just been laid.

Sustainable-trend economic growth is well above the OECD average, and productivity levels are going through the roof, as is wage growth. It seems improbable that things could get any better, in the Prime Minister’s mind, and then lo and behold, the Brexit Secretary pops his head around the door and tells her that the EU has agreed to all his demands, including tariff-free access to European markets, unbridled access to the single market and unprecedented immigration controls on EU citizens coming to the UK. He says, with only a scintilla of triumphalism, that the €70 billion divorce settlement cheque will be with the Treasury pretty soon, and the EU will pay the exchange control commission as well. Then he tells her that he is off to the Strangers Bar to have a drink with the Foreign Secretary and the Trade Secretary and she is welcome to join him.

This fantasy goes on. She apologises. She says she cannot go because she is waiting for a phone call from Donald Trump in which she plans to tell him in no uncertain terms that she is cancelling the state visit. She finally finishes off reading an email from the Secretary of State for Scotland informing her that Nicola Sturgeon told him that the SNP is disbanding because their claim for independence was simply a mistake and she is sorry for all the trouble caused. Then, with measured self-satisfaction, the Prime Minister rises from her seat, crosses the room, opens the wardrobe door, steps inside, pushes aside the fur coats and walks back into the world that we live in, the world in Westminster Hall, the world of reality. That is where she now is: the world of reality.

Over the past couple of hours of debate, many hon. Members have rightly paid tribute to the tireless work of our public sector workers, who go above and beyond the call of duty. However, these public sector workers, as has been suggested, do not need tribute from the Government; they need action. That is exactly what the Chancellor refused to do two weeks ago—absolutely no action whatsoever. I believe it is the Chancellor’s birthday today. He will not be getting many happy returns from public sector workers.

Some 5.4 million people work in the public sector, including friends and family members of mine, and of hon. Members across the Chamber, as has been alluded to. I would like to remind the Government what public servants do, because they seem to have forgotten. Public sector workers provide services that are crucial to the good running and order of the country. That has been touched upon. The armed services and the police protect our country and this House every day. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North alluded to that as well. They provide services that educate and look after our children, and care for our disabled citizens and our senior citizens. That was alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who said that there is no one as noble as he or she who cares—I think that is more or less the phrase. I have said this before, but it is worth repeating: we rarely hear from and do not see many of the services until something goes terribly wrong, such as traffic accidents, floods, public health emergencies and so much more.

This debate comes as we approach the Christmas holidays, which is a tough time for public sector workers. It is a difficult time for our police officers. Many will brave the elements to ensure we are safe over the holidays. What about them? It is difficult for our dedicated NHS staff, who will work long hours, back-to-back shifts over Christmas into the new year. They do not want our thanks. That is dead easy. They want our support for a pay rise, which they have not had for years. It will be a difficult time for all public sector workers, who now face the lowest pay in comparison to the private sector for 20 years.

Despite claims to the contrary, the public sector pay cap is alive and well. It will continue to be so while the Treasury refuses to offer any new money for public sector pay rises and expects overstretched Departments facing further cuts to find the funding themselves. The Chancellor did not even bother to mention the public sector pay cap in his speech. Instead, he signalled yet another attempt to divide one group of workers against the other by restructuring the NHS. Time after time, he sets workers against one another. Under these plans, the Secretary of State for Health will attempt to manipulate recruitment and retention payments, to deny most NHS workers a decent pay rise, and refuse to lift the cap. It is the classic case of dividing the public sector from the private: the nurse against the manager, the admin worker against the manual worker, the north against the south, or the British worker against the foreign worker. The Tories use the same old method time after time. The Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Health and the other departmental Ministers should think again, because they are defending the indefensible. It is as simple as that.

The pay cap disproportionately affects women, who account for two-thirds of the public sector workforce and are already disproportionately affected by austerity. I ask the Government to think about that. Public sector workers will continue to lose out. As has been indicated today, research conducted by the TUC shows that if the Government keep the cap in place until 2020, midwives, teachers and social workers will all see real losses of over £3,000 a year.

[Mike Amesbury]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a scandal that one of the few growth industries in constituencies such as mine—Weaver Vale—is food banks? There has been a 30% increase in the use of food banks, and many users are public sector workers and women with young families.

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend is spot on. Yesterday I was at Tesco in Litherland collecting for food banks. I would like to thank every single one of those people—we have all been there—who gave a tin of soup, a tin of beans, some fruit, some cornflakes, washing liquid, all sorts of things for those people. Thanks to those people for the 1.1 million food parcels going through.

[Alex Chalk]

My constituents at GCHQ believe in their national security mission and are immensely dedicated and skilful public servants, but those skills are much sought after in the private sector too. As the Government move away from the 1% national pay cap, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the need to address pressures on recruitment and retention in this vital national security sector should be borne in mind when future improved pay rates are set?

[Peter Dowd]

Any public sector worker, whether somebody in the military, a nurse, a refuse worker, a teacher or social worker, the five-odd million of them all deserve the pay rise. If the hon. Member’s constituents in GCHQ need a pay rise, I will support them—will he? I am not sure he will.

Meanwhile, nurses, firefighters and border guards will face losing more than £2,500. The cap is not working. There is a situation where households will have one partner working in the public sector and somebody else in the private sector. It is typical: divide the public sector from the private sector. Homes do not work like that. As I said, if one person is working in the public and another in the private sector, should one subsidise the other? Should the wife subsidise the husband? Should the brother subsidise the sister? No. It is absolutely iniquitous and it should stop now. The Government’s continued support of the cap is economically nonsensical. The party of economic confidence, of business—the nonsensical party as far as I am concerned.

[Chris Stephens]

Now that the Conservatives have found their voice in this debate, does my hon. Friend agree that we should find the elusive Conservative who agrees that the public sector pay cap should be lifted?

[Peter Dowd]

Trying to find a Conservative who practically believes that—you are more likely to find, if you will excuse the expression, rocking horse dung, quite frankly. There is more chance of finding that.

[Dan Carden]

It seems that the Conservatives want to be seen to be softening the language on austerity and on pay caps, but in truth we see no action. Does my hon. Friend agree?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend, as ever, has hit the nail right on the head. It is all talk and no action.

[Luke Graham]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, he is being too friendly this afternoon. He asks for a Conservative, well there is one stood right here who, along with many Scottish colleagues, supported the pay cap reviews in London and in Edinburgh. It was announced in the Budget that, certainly from a UK Government perspective, according to the pay boards, they will have the flexibility to lift those pay caps. If they want the evidence, we are right here.

[Peter Dowd]

The voice of the lonely. That is what I would say: the voice of the lonely.

The IPPR and Unison have both provided research that demonstrates that lifting the cap would bring higher tax receipts and lower welfare payments. That has been suggested and indicated by other Members, and they are absolutely right. It would bring real money into the economy. We know that. Why do the Tories not accept it? Let me be clear, on cutting public sector pay, the Chancellor virtually stands alone. Ten years on from the international banking crisis, countries that instituted public sector pay freezes or pay cuts have all reversed them, including the likes of Germany and the United States. Once again, the Conservatives are left behind.

In their written response to the petitioners who triggered this debate, the Government said:

“We still need to deal with our country’s debts…to enable us to invest in our public services.”

They are not even doing that. Hon. Members should look at the Red Book: that is not being delivered. Again, they are the all talk, no action Government. They have not only borrowed more money than any other Government before, but have failed to invest in our public services and those who work in them. We all know it. The country will not run a surplus until 2030—batted off again—at the earliest, a full 15 years after the former Chancellor said the deficit would be eradicated.

So where are we? We cannot afford any rise for our public sector workers but, as has been alluded to, we can afford to relax the bank levy to the tune of the best part of £2 billion a year by 2022. We can also afford to relax corporation tax and other taxes for corporations worth the best part of £70 billion over the next five years. As has also been alluded to, we can afford to pay £3 billion for a botched EU Brexit that should have been sorted out months ago. That has cost the country because of the useless way the Government have dealt with it. We can afford, as we have found in the last two or three days, to pay out £2 billion to east coast line companies. We can afford that; just pick that up, it is no problem at all. We can afford to sell off the Royal Bank of Scotland at a loss of billions upon billions of pounds. The taxpayer picked up the bill for that, and it is the bank putting straight back into the hands of those who caused the problem in the first place. That is the reality, and as we come to the end of another miserable, cold, dark year under the Tories, we cannot afford to pay our public sector workers a decent wage.

I simply say, as I have said time after time and will continue to say: the sooner this Government get their marching orders, the better for all of us. I suspect the Government are in that position themselves, but I am not interested in the Government: I am interested in public sector workers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Jones]

I think that perhaps the hon. Lady is getting a bit carried away. We have no idea what the motives are for people being or not being at this debate. I have certainly been here in debates where there has been no Labour Member of Parliament, but I have not sought to make some kind of cheap political point off the back of it, because that is simply not appropriate and not reasonable.

To recap, the Government are acutely aware of how public sector workers form the backbone of our society and again I join Members in paying tribute to them. We have also had some questions about the reasons for pay policy. It is fair to remind the House that in 2010 we inherited the biggest deficit in our peacetime history. There was an urgent need to get public spending under some control, and that has been a key ingredient in returning our economy to health. The coalition Government implemented a two-year pay freeze, which has been mentioned several times by Members during the debate, but I remind the Labour party gently that it supported that policy at the time. The pay freeze was followed by a series of 1% pay awards for public sector workers. In the autumn Budget the Chancellor—he did mention this, I point out to the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd)—reconfirmed that under this Conservative Government the policy would end. It was a reconfirmation because that had been previously announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in a statement on 12 September.

What does that mean? That means that for 2018-19 the Secretaries of State will have much greater flexibility in how they consider pay awards for public servants. I will return to the substance of the Chancellor’s announcement in a few moments, but first I will highlight the scale of the challenge. Public sector workers account for roughly £1 in every £4 that the Government spend, so we are dealing with some enormous sums of money here. The public sector pay bill in 2016-17 was £179.41 billion. That was an increase of 3.6% on the previous year, when it was £173.2 billion. There is a ginormous scale to the amount of money that has to be found. That leads me to one of the factors in determining pay policy: getting the right balance between finding the money and rewarding public servants for their vital work, while being fair to all taxpayers and ensuring that we return our public finances to balance.

[Peter Dowd]

In line 11 on page 4 of “Funding Britain’s Future”, Labour shows exactly how it would fund lifting the pay cap. Can the Minister be as explicit and comprehensive as Labour has been on this matter?

Duties of Customs

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 20th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

At last, we have the Ways and Means motion before the House. The enigmatic—some might say pretty puzzling—part of it all is that it does not have much to say practically about taxation, cross-borders or trade. That is somewhat perplexing given that the title of the Bill is the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill. The only word in the title that in any way reflects this subject is the word “Bill”.

I wait with bated breath for the customs Bill, which I trust will have—hope springs eternal—more substance to it. Perhaps we will see more of the same powers to alter primary legislation going into Ministers’ back pockets. However, if this Ways and Means motion is the warm-up act to the customs Bill, I imagine that it will be just as disappointing, vague, opaque and abstruse.

I exhort the Minister to have a look at the representations of the Chartered Institute of Taxation. I am sure that he will read those observations will alacrity, as I do. In the institute’s response to the Government’s White Paper, “Customs Bill: legislating for the UK’s future customs, VAT and excise regimes”, it made a number of observations that are worth highlighting. For example, paragraph 1.3 states:

“The paper gives rise to an unusually complex mix of legal and technical issues within equally complex political constraints. It is not our remit to enter into debate about the political constraints, but a lack of clarity around the political constraints makes the technical analysis somewhat more difficult.”

That is a fair reflection, in very measured tones, of what the rest of us think, which is that the cack-handed manner in which the Government have approached the negotiations with the EU has left the important detail that is necessary to ensure the deal that the Prime Minister ostensibly wants—namely, streamlined customs arrangements—to the vacillations of the Government in general and the Brexit Secretary in particular. That is very worrying.

It is worrying in that the Government continue to be dragged screaming and shouting to this Chamber on any issue that they feel uncomfortable debating. When they do discuss it, they try to curtail the debate. The Chartered Institute of Taxation also has something to say on that in paragraphs 5.4 and 5.5 of its response to the White Paper, which state:

“We acknowledge the predicament of needing to begin the legislative process before knowing the outcome of negotiations. However, we have concerns around the limited level of scrutiny that this law-making process allows, given the political uncertainty, the potential for large-scale changes and tight timescales… The Bill will, we understand, have the powers to amend primary legislation using secondary legislation; raising similar concerns around delegated powers as with the EU Withdrawal Bill.”

The Government are even dragging their feet on the production of the 58 impact assessments, some two weeks after this House demanded them. The Opposition recognise the need for the Government to begin preparations for an independent customs and tariff regime, as that is both logical and necessary. However, it does not mean giving the Government a blank cheque to concentrate power in the hands of the Executive. The upcoming Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill will outline the powers of a new trade remedies authority, the creation of which is outlined in the Government’s Trade Bill.

Let me be clear: although Labour supports the creation of a truly independent trade remedies authority to help to protect UK industry and advise the Government on how best to tackle the dumping of state-subsidised cheap goods on the UK market, we do not want to see an authority compiled of the International Trade Secretary’s cronies, who are tasked with advising him on how best to dismantle key sectors of the UK economy. Instead, we want a trade remedies authority that reports directly to Parliament, rather than to the Department for International Trade. It should have representatives from the trade union movement, British business and each of the devolved Administrations. We will not allow this House to be sidestepped or side-lined by a Government consumed by chaos.

Whether with the Henry VIII powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill or the delegated powers set out in the Trade Bill, this Government have shown an unhealthy obsession for cementing power in the hands of the Executive and shying away from any parliamentary scrutiny.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

It seems that the mantra of “taking back control” that we saw during the EU referendum campaign essentially means taking back control to Ministers, not to this democratically-elected Parliament.

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. That has been the line that this Government have taken. Power stops at Westminster and it does not go beyond. It is, quite frankly, a sham.

The Government cannot even bring themselves to include in this Ways and Means motion any reference whatever to parliamentary scrutiny; they do not like that. At every opportunity, even if the Government have contempt for this House, we will ensure that they will be forced to explain why they are so frightened of parliamentary scrutiny. At every corner, they will be required to explain in the cold light of day why they seem so reluctant to send Ministers to the Dispatch Box to explain the Government’s rationale.

Now, the Government, in their faux generosity, will claim that they have set aside eight days to debate the withdrawal Bill and other days to discuss Brexit. However, in the withdrawal Bill, they are institutionalising an accretion of powers to the Executive that is quite unheard of in the modern history of this country. [Interruption.] Ministers are huffing and puffing, but that is the reality: the accretion of power to Ministers is absolutely disgraceful.

We have to go back to the second world war to see powers of this magnitude and extent reserved to the Government, and those were dismantled as soon after the war as practical. At least our forebears had good reason in that situation, in so far as there was a national Government—a true coalition—united against one of the most odious regimes. The methods being used to sideline Parliament are quite shocking. History will treat this Government with the contempt they deserve for their feculent attempts to disenfranchise this House.

[Mel Stride]

I have patiently listened to what the hon. Gentleman has had to say. He has referred to the powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and to the operation, setting-up and independence or otherwise of the TRA. Neither of those items is actually included in this Bill, so what is it in this Bill that he wants to make a point about?

[Peter Dowd]

The right hon. Gentleman misses the point. This is part of the whole pattern and process by which this Government accrue and accrue powers. Government Members do not seem to grasp that concept, but the fact is that the Government continue to pull powers to themselves and do not devolve them to any of the other nations.

[Anna Soubry]

I think the hon. Gentleman is really struggling on this. It makes eminent sense that the Government should have the powers to deal with all eventualities. Perhaps he could help this place by explaining the Labour party’s current policy on the customs union. Is the Labour party in favour of us remaining in the customs union de facto as we go into transition, or is it against that? Is it in favour of our staying in the customs union by way of a final deal, which I think is an eminently good idea?

[Peter Dowd]

I will tell the right hon. Lady what we are in favour of: parliamentary scrutiny. It was John Bright who reportedly coined the phrase “the Mother of Parliaments”, which is completely alien to Conservative Members and, obviously, to the right hon. Lady. I suspect that he, along with many other Radical and Conservative parliamentarians, would be turning in his grave at the idea that a Government living on borrowed time have the arrogance, hubris and others would say bluster to treat Parliament in the fashion this Government are intent on doing.

Conservative Members have to ask themselves this question: did their constituents send them to this House to acquiesce is the systematic stripping away of parliamentary scrutiny, which is not in the national interest, or did they send them here to hold the Government to account, regardless of their party allegiance? The Minister should take seriously the concerns I have raised, as many others inside and outside the House have, about the fast and loose approach the Government are taking to parliamentary scrutiny.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Gentleman has not answered the incredibly important intervention made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). Can I ask him a different question? Will he be supporting amendment (e), which is the unofficial Opposition amendment?

[Peter Dowd]

The fact of the matter is that we are not closing off options, which the Government seem to have a pathological obsession with doing.

I hope that, between now and Second Reading, the Government will consider the importance of comprehensive parliamentary oversight and pay attention to the concerns of this House in relation to this whole question.

Tax Avoidance and Evasion

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I will try to take that on board as a suggestion rather than a direction, Mr Speaker. The Minister identified what he thinks should be done, but I will tell him what should be done. In our “Tax Transparency and Enforcement Programme” document, Labour calls for an immediate public inquiry into avoidance, greater scrutiny of MPs, the creation of a specialist tax enforcement unit, and the public filing of large company tax returns and of the tax returns of wealthy individuals earning more than £1 million. We want no public contracts for tax avoiders, the repatriation of contracts parked in tax havens, public contract transparency, a register of beneficial ownership of companies and a register of trusts, and our programme would be enforced by working with the banking sector. We also call for a general anti-avoidance rule in principle, strict minimum standards for crown dependencies and overseas territories, the creation of an offshore companies levy and full country-by-country reporting. All that represents a comprehensive proposal from Labour.

[Catherine West]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an army of tax avoidance facilitators that includes, sadly, the four big accountancy firms, which are often based just down the road in the square mile?

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Transparency is at the heart of all this. I experienced a bizarre situation last week when I was on “Newsnight” with the chairman of the Cayman Islands stock exchange. What an insouciant attitude that man had to tax avoidance. He actually said that there had not been any wrongdoing—maybe not—and called for the journalists to be jailed. That is what he did, and that is the position in which we find ourselves.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Peter Dowd]

I am going to take Mr Speaker’s suggestion and push on, because it will become an admonition otherwise. I will then take some interventions.

I hope that Members across the House will join me in condemning the irresponsible and offensive comments of the chairman of the Cayman Islands stock exchange. All of us owe a debt of gratitude to the journalists involved for their hard work and diligence. They have demonstrated the importance of a free press in holding the wealthiest and most powerful individuals and multinationals to account.

To be clear, we are talking about tax avoidance that covers activities that are within the law but work against its effective application. Most of the people involved in the cases have not broken any laws or acted in a criminal way, but that does not make tax avoidance acceptable or justifiable in the 21st century. After all, as has been identified, tax avoidance costs us all. Every pound avoided is one pound taken away from our children’s education, from our armed forces—the very people who protect us—and from the elderly and disabled. The conservative—and Conservative—figures that the Government have published on tax avoidance show that HMRC recorded from 2010-2015 that £12.8 billion was lost to the Exchequer through tax avoidance. That is unacceptable.

People have a view about what the previous Labour Government did. They think that it was much better than the Tories overall, but I am not going to go there. The question arises—[Interruption.] I refer the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) to the Financial Times. With the greatest of respect, I am not his researcher, and I am sure he is more than capable.

[James Cartlidge]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if the current tax gap was at the same level that it had been on average under Labour, our deficit would be £12 billion higher?

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) says, “Move on.” and I think she is absolutely right. I will reaffirm the point that was made in Labour’s tax programme document: we have to push on with this debate. It does no good for the Government to talk about the past; we want to talk about the here and now and the future.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Peter Dowd]

I will give way to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge).

[James Cartlidge]

I had not expected—[Interruption.]

[James Cartlidge]

I will ask the shadow Minister a question. The tax gap is now 6%. It averaged 8% under Labour. Does he accept that if the tax gap was 8% now, the deficit would be £12 billion bigger?

[Peter Dowd]

The hon. Gentleman can extrapolate all he wants. I could extrapolate all sorts of figures, but I am not going to get into that. We will no doubt come back to the matter in due course at the Budget.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Peter Dowd]

You are looking at me with those eyes and with a smile, Mr Speaker, so I will move on.

While tax avoidance is a global problem, it is also a UK problem. The UK accounts for 17% of the global market for offshore services. We are considered one of the biggest—if not the biggest—players in the global offshore system of tax havens. We account for some of the world’s key tax havens, including Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Bahamas, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Bermuda and the Turks and Caicos Islands, all of which are either Crown dependencies or British overseas territories and all of which are afforded the support and the protection of the British Government. Despite our prominence as a country at the heart of a network of offshore tax havens that aids and abets tax avoidance across the globe, the Government refuse to lead the way in global tax transparency. I keep on using that word “transparency” and I will keep on doing so.

[Mike Amesbury]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the purchasing of a private jet at nearly £17 million and then setting up an offshore leasing company with the sole aim of saving £3 million in VAT is an affront to our public services?

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend is quite right. That is shocking.

Government Members’ denial about their record on tax avoidance is not new. In 2013, while the G8 was pushing ahead with stricter rules that would clamp down on tax avoidance, the then Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, was busy undermining them, writing to the President of the European Council demanding that offshore trusts were excluded. The Government’s record on tackling tax avoidance is not all that they would like it to be.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

The shadow Minister is being generous with his time. We all agree that this matter should be a priority, and the shadow Minister is focusing on our record, but why did the Labour party block the three measures that we brought forward in the wash-up that would have been worth £8.6 billion—vital for all the public services that he listed earlier? It is a joint priority, and we need both sides to work on this.

[Peter Dowd]

I am more than happy to give the hon. Gentleman the narrative of the wash-up proceedings. If he wants, I am happy to talk to him outside, because the information that he has been getting from his Front-Bench team is nonsense.

I am going to conclude to give others the opportunity to speak. First we had the Panama papers and now we have the Paradise papers; how many more tax avoidance leaks will there need to be before the Government act? It is clear that we desperately need a public inquiry into tax avoidance and the use of offshore trusts and tax havens. The Government should listen to the Opposition and, perhaps more importantly, to people outside the House and act by introducing a public register of offshore trusts and publishing the information already provided from overseas territories. They should also stop cuts to HMRC and ensure that HMRC has the staff and resources it needs to tackle tax avoidance at its core.

If the Government continue to ignore the problem and fail to act, I reassure the House that a Labour Government will act.

HMRC Closures

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Davies. Where do we begin with this situation? It is an absolute dog’s dinner. The Minister has inherited a number of dogs’ dinners since coming into post and I almost feel sorry for him.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) talked about the need for human intervention, but I think we need divine intervention. St Matthew is the patron saint of tax collectors, and he will have to be prayed to an awful lot for this particular mess to be put right. We all sit up when somebody talks about modernisation, because we know what it means: job cuts and closures of this, that and the other. And this is a classic case of modernisation.

I met senior HMRC officers to discuss the criteria used for the decisions. I declare an interest: HMRC is a significant presence in my constituency and well over 2,000 of my constituents work there. Members will, therefore, forgive me if I spend a little time on Bootle, because it is an exemplar of the problems facing other places.

The officers told me that one of the criteria is that offices need to be near a city centre, but Liverpool city centre is closer to my constituency of Bootle than it is to parts of Liverpool itself. They also said that they need to be near a university, but the situation is exactly the same: Liverpool University and Liverpool John Moores University are closer to Bootle than they are to the proposed new Liverpool site. The officers talked about transport and infrastructure access, but the HMRC offices in Bootle are literally surrounded by stations, including a railway station. In fact, a bus station right next to my office is literally a minute’s walk from the HMRC offices in the Triad building and the new St John’s House.

We were told that we needed to maintain staff retention, but the turnover at HMRC in my constituency is negligible. They are high-skilled, high-performing, loyal staff, so that criterion does not apply. There has been no impact assessment. Nipping back to the transport situation, no assessment was made of the transport links. Mersey Travel, the Cheshire transport authority and the Welsh transport authority were not contacted, even though they will also be affected by the proposals. The way in which this has been dealt with has been an absolute dog’s dinner.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas)—he apologises for not being here—has written to the Chancellor, because the issue affects his north Wales constituency, which is virtually on the border. The letter mentions the proposed closure of the Wrexham HMRC office, which will result in the loss of 350 jobs, as part of the proposal to centralise Wales staff in Cardiff. It states:

“I am incredulous that the Government is continuing to propose a policy course of moving staff away from the regions to centralised city centre locations and it seems to me that the new political environment created by Brexit allows us to pursue a new regional policy by maintaining jobs in, for example, Wrexham, the largest town in North Wales.”

That is a very good point.

I apologise for only mentioning this now, but I am pleased that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) has brought this issue to our attention again. How many times have we discussed this matter without ever receiving any proper answers from the Government? Interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) and for Bradford East made a compelling case for why it needs—at the very least—to be looked at.

My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) graciously shared with us his experience of the heart-rending closure process in his constituency. I thank him for bringing that to our attention, because, if the proposals go ahead, that will be the future for communities right across the country, including mine. Thousands of people who work in my constituency will be moved to the iconic but very expensive India Buildings—car parking is at an absolute premium—in Liverpool. Why do they have to move three miles up the road when it is going to cost more money? There will be a net cost to the taxpayer in my constituency—but not, apparently, to the so-called national envelope—as a result of those offices being moved. That is dreadful.

Colleagues have made those points time after time, but let us hear what other people are saying. In a report on professional bodies, Accountancy Live noted:

“HMRC reorganisation risks pushing tax authority to breaking point. Tax advisers and professional bodies are sceptical about…HMRC’s plans to close 137 offices”.

Those are not our words, but those of professionals who work on these issues every single day.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales said it was staggered by the argument that HMRC will actually be adequate to provide any sort of service to 5 million or 6 million taxpayers in the London area, notwithstanding what reconfigurations may be made to the service. The word “disastrous” has been used and I agree that the situation is and will be disastrous. I ask the Government to take a step back and reconsider.

On Mapeley, something does not smell right, to be frank, about the deal for the India Buildings—to which HMRC will be moving—prior to HMRC’s involvement. People are coming to me all the time about that, so I am going to have to look in much more detail at the proposal. I have no doubt that in due course I will have to either come back here or write to the Chancellor, although I hope that I will not have to do so.

Opposition Members have raised the social and economic impact, but I do not think that any Government Members have done so, with the exception of the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham), whom I thank. It is symptomatic of the debate that only one Conservative Member is in attendance. Others do not appear to be in the least bit interested in the impact that the proposal will have on whole swathes of the nation, including Scotland, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) has said, and Wales, which will have one office. There will be 10 or 11 offices in the rest of the country and possibly one in Northern Ireland.

This is a pretty grim situation. To add insult to injury, some of these deals were signed de facto during purdah. If a Labour Government had done that, there would have been absolute screeching from the press, the media and the Conservatives about how we were trying to tie the hands of a subsequent Government. We would have been pilloried for it and—do you know what?—rightly so.

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

The issue of making decisions during purdah has already been raised. It is right and proper that those decisions were made because, as the hon. Gentleman will know, under the appropriate arrangements, the Government should never act such as to incur costs through delay. Furthermore, those decisions were signed off in entirely the right manner by the Cabinet Office.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

I take the Minister’s point, but there is always an issue in government.

[Chris Stephens]

I listened to the Minister’s intervention. Does the shadow Minister agree that it is somewhat ironic that during purdah, some of these contracts—for example, the contract signed in Edinburgh—were signed on some of the most expensive buildings in Scotland?

[Peter Dowd]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Some of them cost an arm and a leg. The Minister should take on board the question of perception. In a democracy, when we are in the middle of an election, it might be technically, legally and administratively okay to do this, that and the other.

[Jim McMahon]

I am afraid that I do not buy the Minister’s explanation at all. The delays to the lease being confirmed for the Manchester office meant that additional costs were already being incurred. The incurred costs for one scheme were because of commercial and development reasons. The Government say that they could not wait for purdah to complete, but that would have given a new, incoming Government the freedom to change that decision. The situation is very odd.

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent and valid point. The Government should think those sorts of things through.

As I was saying, there is, at the very least, an issue of perception about whether this is all above board. Even if it is above board, it has to be seen to be above board. The issue is that people do not feel that that is the case. We all feel that something is not quite right. In a democracy, we have to be seen to be above board. That feeds into the concern that some of us have that Parliament is being ridden over roughshod on a whole range of issues. For example, we did not have Opposition day debates for months on end. When we did get them, the Government virtually did not turn up to respond, and they continue to take that approach. It feeds into the perception that they are developing contempt for the views of Members in this Chamber and, specifically, the main Chamber.

There is a perception—and in this case, it is a reality—that the Government treat people with contempt. A briefing on the civil service compensation scheme feeds into that narrative:

“On 18 July 2017 the High Court held that the Government had failed to comply with the duty to consult prior to amending the CSCS, in that it had imposed conditions on union participation in the consultation process.”

That seems to be saying, “You either agree with us in advance what we want you to discuss, or you’re going to be brushed aside and not considered.” The briefing continues:

“As such, the 2016 amendments were unlawful.”

There is getting to be a pattern of unlawfulness with the Government—for example, the issues on tribunal fees and in relation to social security. It goes on:

“The Court’s decision is at the time of writing subject to appeal to the Court of Appeal.”

I have no doubt that the Government will do that. That is dated 26 October—just a few days ago.

We are not the only ones making this argument. The Public Accounts Committee said:

“We do not believe that it will save as much money as HMRC has predicted”—

that is the understatement of the decade—

“and we are concerned that it has not thought through all the negative costs to the wider economy of its approach and the impact on local employment”.

That is another understatement, if ever there was one. Many people and communities will be dreadfully affected by this.

Let us talk about service issues. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales said:

“Service standards are deteriorating with taxpayers having to spend longer and longer on the phone trying to get through or waiting for their letters to be answered.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) alluded to that. To boot, the National Audit Office says that this has cost £600 million more than first thought. That is the situation we are in. Why the Government are persisting with this dog’s dinner is absolutely beyond me.

Members today have made fantastic contributions that were forensic, surgical, factual, objective and mixed with a bit of humanity, which seems to be completely missing from the Government’s approach. I ask the Government to take these proposals back, give them further consideration and think about the communities and people affected.

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

May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies? I know this is an important subject to you, so if I hear any stifled gurgling or funny sounds, I will put them down to your general condition, rather than to you expressing an opinion on the matter at hand.

I thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) for securing this very important debate. We are talking about very important matters—people’s jobs and local communities. Of course, the overarching matter we are talking about is the efficient collection of tax. We all know why that is extremely important.

Before I get into the specifics of the plans we have been discussing, perhaps I could make some general points that will be useful. HMRC’s work is fundamental to that of the Government. It provides the funds for the public services on which we all rely. Every pound we raise through taxation is another pound we have to support our nurses in the NHS, keep our police force functioning effectively and support our armed forces. In other words, HMRC is not engaged in some kind of theoretical exercise. One of the most important functions Government have is to bring in the money to support public services. Taxpayers expect and demand that the money be spent responsibly, with good reason.

I think all Members here would agree that it is vital that HMRC can deliver value for money and maximise the tax it collects, relative to the tax due. It follows from that that we must have a tax authority that is fit for the modern age. I make no apologies for using that expression.

[Peter Dowd]

I do not think anybody disagrees with the Minister on the collection of tax, but that is all the more reason for the Government to get their facts right about the places where tax will effectively be collected from, and to not revise the costs time after time. This has now cost an additional £600 million. Is it not incumbent on the Government to get those figures right before they come to Parliament and wave these proposals through?

[Mel Stride]

A number of Members in the debate raised the costs mentioned in the National Audit Office report, the Public Accounts Committee report and so on. Certainly, the business plan has gone through various iterations, but where we are is quite clear: the total investment over the next 10 years will be £552 million. The NAO has disputed some of our figures, and the Government’s view is that the NAO has looked at those figures on a different basis—for example, over a 10-year period, whereas we were initially looking at figures over five years.

We have some cost avoidance of £75 million per annum from 2021 through getting out of the private finance initiative arrangement—which, incidentally, we entered into in 2001, which was of course under a Labour Government. On top of that, we will have £300 million-worth of savings over the next 10 years, and we will have annual cost savings of £74 million in 2025-26 compared with 2015-16, rising to around £90 million from 2026-27. The savings are ongoing and will be long standing.[Official Report, 27 November 2017, Vol. 632, c. 2MC.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

That prompts the question of what the overarching purpose of HMRC is: to provide customer service efficiently to those who need access to it, and, at the end of the day, to bring in tax. We have a tremendous record, and it has a tremendous record, of doing exactly that. The main thrust of these decisions has ultimately to be about having a 21st-century organisation for a changing environment, and that means the kind of model that this process is driving towards.

[Peter Dowd]

The Minister has referred to the eight criteria on numerous occasions. I am trying to get my head around this question: when the criteria for the move are not fulfilled, what are the criteria used to override those criteria?

[Mel Stride]

The criteria are there to allow a balanced judgment across the eight criteria as to where the best place is for the regional hubs. That is exactly the approach that HMRC has taken. I fully appreciate that there are Members here who are very unhappy with the fact that there may be some closures in their constituency, but that does not necessarily mean that the criteria are being inappropriately exercised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the criteria applied in taking the decision were not simply about cost. As to his assertion that the decision that has been taken is an exceptionally high-cost option, I cannot comment, because I do not have access to that level of detail at this precise moment; but the decisions are taken in the round, using eight different criteria, of which cost is but one. As I have repeatedly stated, the overarching objective must be the effective and efficient collection of tax, which provides all the funding for our public services. That is the basis on which the decisions are taken.

HMRC is now open to take calls from customers and engage in webchats seven days a week, so people can contact the Department at times to suit them. This year, more than 987,000 tax credit customers renewed online using the digital service. It would simply not be possible to continue to drive improvements without transforming the offices from which HMRC staff work.

The changes are an integral part of HMRC’s transformation into a smaller, more highly-skilled organisation—one that has modern digital services and a data-driven compliance operation, which will deliver more for the taxpayer, at lower cost.

[Peter Dowd]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mel Stride]

This must be about my 30th intervention; I am delighted to give way to the shadow Minister.

[Peter Dowd]

The Minister is being incredibly generous with his time. The question of the criteria goes to the heart of the matter, Mr Stringer; incidentally, I welcome you to the Chair, and am delighted to see you. The Minister persists with the issue of the criteria, one of which is the ability to get to a particular site via transport mechanisms and infrastructure. The problem, however, is that in many situations there has not even been an assessment of how the particular criterion applies to particular sites. I understand what the Minister says—the criteria exist. They may do, but does he agree that if they are not applied, that shoots a hole through the whole process?

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. We have just over an hour left, but I remind hon. Members that interventions should be short and to the point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

That is a matter of fact, not a point of order relating to the debate.

[Peter Dowd]

rose—

[Mel Stride]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Peter Dowd]

I shall write to the Minister about this; but the bottom line is that when I asked senior officers about the criterion on transport access, I asked them if they had spoken to the transport authorities for the areas affected, and they told me they had not. It is an important point. If an assessment relating to the transport authorities was not done—if the officers did a desktop assessment—that is not proper consideration of the criterion.

[Mel Stride]

We can go round and round this for some time, but HMRC has a very clear set of criteria. It has looked extremely carefully. As I explained earlier, when it comes to travel distances to work and journey times it has mapped every single employee within its employ, to make sure that that aspect of that particular decision is taken as rigorously and robustly as possible. I am afraid I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that this is somehow just a case of putting a finger in the air and a pin in a map. It has been well thought through.

To conclude, raising taxes is vital to our public services.

Finance Bill

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment 17.

[Peter Dowd]

Proceedings on this Bill started in March, but we are now drawing to a close. The Bill’s progress was interrupted by the general election. Not much happened to it in the post-election period, but it was brought back in September, and now we are moving, to use the Minister’s phrase, towards the denouement of the debate.

To solve a problem, it is first important to recognise that there is a problem. I think that that sums up the debate surrounding the Government’s deemed domicile measures—the Government cannot see that there is a problem. Non-dom status is a hangover from the days of the British Empire. Non-dom tax status was introduced in 1799 to allow British colonialists with foreign property to shelter it from wartime taxes. These days, non-doms are individuals who live in the UK but claim to have a permanent home in another country. There is no statutory definition of a non-dom; the status depends on circumstantial evidence.

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs says that 121,000 individuals claimed non-domiciled taxpayer status via their self-assessment returns in 2014-15. Non-domiciled UK-resident taxpayers accounted for about 85,000 of those individuals, and the remaining 35,000 or so were non-UK residents. Famous examples of non-doms include the directors of Lloyds, HSBC and RBS, the billionaire Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich, the steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal, the media baron Viscount Rothermere, and numerous footballers.

Non-doms are allowed to avoid tax on overseas investment income if that does not exceed £2,000 a year. All non-doms are required to pay income tax on their UK earnings, but they can avoid income tax and capital gains tax on assets held elsewhere as long as the amounts are not remitted to the UK. The Treasury’s proposals to reform non-dom status would mean that an individual who had been resident in the UK for 15 of the last 20 years would be considered UK-domiciled for the purposes of income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s case with interest. I am curious why, in their first 12 years in power, the last Labour Government did nothing whatsoever about non-domiciled individuals, and then reacted reluctantly only when they were humiliated and forced to take action by the then Conservative Opposition. Why is he not praising the Conservative Government for taking further action on this matter?

[Peter Dowd]

If it takes a Labour Government to sort out a problem after more than 200 years, we will sort out the problem.

On paper, this idea seems to be reasonable and sensible —in fact, even progressive—until, metaphorically speaking, someone starts to scratch away at the very thin veneer. In reality, the Government have purposefully and deliberately exempted offshore trusts, thereby undermining their own reforms, even though offshore trusts have been identified by the OECD, the European Parliament and the International Monetary Fund as among the main vehicles for tax avoidance across the globe.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that his well-intentioned proposal might actually backfire, as it would mean that fewer rich people would come here and pay us any tax at all?

[Peter Dowd]

The problem is that that has been a persistent argument for years, but there does not actually appear to be any evidence to back up such an assertion.

I understand that HMRC is responding to EU directives on money laundering and has started the process of registering new trusts and that those already operating must provide additional information by 31 January 2018. However, HMRC has also confirmed that it will not penalise anyone as long as they register before 5 December 2017. The rules state that all trusts with UK tax liabilities must be registered, but the process is conveniently silent about trusts registered in Crown dependencies and overseas territories. The information provided to HMRC will not be made publicly available.

The Minister and Government Members have made much of the claim that the Conservative party has been clamping down on tax avoidance. In fact, that was considered such a priority in the general election that the Prime Minister—at her most imperious, at that stage—gave the subject a grand total of eight lines in the Conservative party manifesto. However, after seven years in power, the Government’s record is still there to see. The measures in the Bill are another example of how the Government wish to be seen to be doing something, but in fact their proposals are artificial and will amount to little while the exemption for offshore trusts remains intact.

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

On bearing down on tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance, does the hon. Gentleman recognise that we have brought in £160 billion since 2010 by clamping down on avoidance? It was announced just last week that the tax gap—the difference between what we should be bringing in and what we are bringing in—is now at just 6%, which is much lower than it was in any year under the previous Labour Government.

[Peter Dowd]

I am pleased that the Minister raises that point because we will no doubt have another debate about it in the future. I have an interesting assertion that I shall make when we debate the tax gap, but that is for another day. I am happy to debate that subject with the Minister in due course.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that a tax gap that is one of the lowest in the world is something that we should celebrate while we are debating a Bill about taxation? We should be thanking the Government for making sure that the taxes we approve are collected.

[Peter Dowd]

This does not actually include the multinationals, but I was trying to make the point that I am happy to return to that point in another debate, if the Government so wish.

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman is being extremely generous in giving way. On this very important question, does he not recognise that the tax gap is currently 6%? In 2005, under the previous Labour Government, it was about 8%. If the tax gap was 8% today, we would be bringing in £11.8 billion less in tax, which is the equivalent of the funding for every single police officer in England and Wales. The tax gap really does matter, so I think that the hon. Gentleman should address the questions that are being put to him.

[Peter Dowd]

The tax gap fell in every year between 2005 and 2010. The Minister brings my attention to his record, but I am bringing his attention to Labour’s record. As I have said, if we want to have a debate about the tax gap, we can do that. I am more than happy to do so, as are my colleagues, but as I have said many times, this is also about trying to look forward. We can all talk about our record—how good or bad it might have been—but let us move on and try to deal with the issues we are facing, not those we used to face.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

I accept that you do not want to talk about the tax gap and want to move forward, but if you want to move forward, will you at the very least welcome the fact that we have collected more than £1 billion—

[Ms Ghani]

I am sorry, Mr Speaker.

The hon. Gentleman might not want to talk about the tax gap, but will he at the very least acknowledge that an extra £1 billion has been collected under this Government compared with under Labour? Surely he wants to take this opportunity to welcome that.

[Peter Dowd]

As much as I would like to debate the tax gap with the hon. Lady, I think that shows an ignorance of the issues involved in the nature of the tax gap. As far as I am concerned, I am quite happy—more than happy—to debate this issue in due course, but I am simply making the point that we must move on.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Dowd]

I want to make a little progress, but I will come back to the hon. and learned Lady in a few moments.

In the past month alone, the Government have faced a barrage of criticism from the European Union for their poor record on tackling tax avoidance. The European Parliament’s report on money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion has accused the Government of directly obstructing the fight against tax avoidance, while the European Commission has opened an investigation into the Government’s changes to controlled foreign company rules, which made it easier for multinational companies to shift their taxable income offshore and reduced last year’s tax take by £805 million. That goes to the heart of the point I am making about the tax gap and some of its intricacies.

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. He has made it clear that he wants to talk about the issue before us rather than others. Labour Members say in new clause 1 that they want a review after 15 months. Despite speaking for more than 10 minutes, he has not addressed that. Has Labour assessed how much a review would cost and whether it would divert resources from the Treasury?

[Peter Dowd]

I thank the hon. and learned Lady for that intervention. Government Members have taken up about seven minutes of the time I have been on my feet—[Interruption.] Six and a half minutes, the Minister says.

I am quite happy to debate these issues, but that is the point of a review. Why not have a review? It is a perfectly reasonable and legitimate proposal, given the nature of what we are considering. If there is nothing to hide, and if the Government are quite happy to be open and transparent and to tell everybody how wonderfully they are doing, let us have a review. No doubt the hon. and learned Lady will support the new clause in due course.

[Lucy Frazer]

Forgive me for intervening again, but I do not think the hon. Gentleman heard my question: how much would the review cost?

[Peter Dowd]

If we had a review and identified areas of non-compliance, I suspect we would bring in far more money than that review would cost. That is why we have reviews. Again, I am sure that the hon. and learned Lady will support the new clause.

The Government’s opposition to any action to crack down on offshore trusts is not new. In 2013, while G8 leaders attempted to push forward new measures to deal with tax evasion, the previous Prime Minister was busy undermining them by writing personal letters to the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, begging him to stop the inclusion of offshore trusts. By contrast, the last Labour Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, to his credit, spent his last year in office attempting to get world leaders to agree to strict measures on offshore tax havens. That is all the more reason for a review, so let us have that review. I am speaking directly to our proposal. As I have said, if there is nothing to be fearful of, let us have the review.

Our opposition to the exemption of offshore trusts from these measures is well noted. We have been calling for the exemption’s removal since March. I called for its removal in the debate on the Ways and Means resolutions for this Bill, on Second Reading and in the Public Bill Committee, as the Minister knows, and I now call for its removal once again. I am happy to give the Minister an opportunity to reconsider, because the British public are no fools. They are more educated than ever about what an offshore trust is and what it is used for.

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman is being exceptionally generous in letting us intervene so many times. To bottom out one point that came up in Committee, even though he may feel that our proposals are imperfect, does he accept that we have made more progress than any previous Government and that we are going further than before in raising fair taxes from non-doms?

[Peter Dowd]

I recognise any progress that anybody makes. If the Government have brought about progress, that is fine—I think it is wonderful—but I think there should be more progress. Under the stewardship of the Minister, I am convinced that we will have even more progress on this matter.

While the Minister might be able to use arcane rules of the House to prevent the Opposition from removing the offshore trusts exemption and introducing a public register, he cannot hide from the fact that his Government have a pretty poor record in this area. The heart of our disagreement with the Government is simple: it is about whether all UK citizens are to be treated equally in the eyes of the law and for the purposes of taxation. Throughout the passage of the Bill, it has been clear that the Government are actively content to ensure that we have a tax system that favours a wealthy few at the expense of the many.

The Government could act to close this tax avoidance measure. They could act to send a message to those who want to dodge taxes that the UK will not tolerate it. They could send a message to those who do not avoid their taxes that the Government are on their side. They could even send a message of support to hard-pressed public services by taking up the suggestion of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and hypothecating any taxes raised by clamping down on the dodgers.

[Ms Ghani]

The hon. Gentleman has been very generous in giving way. I am a little concerned about the messages he wants to send out, but one message that we most definitely should send out is that the Government proposals will bring in an additional £1.6 billion over five years. That is money that will support all our public services for everyone.

[Peter Dowd]

That is a starter and I am sure that much more could be brought in. Again, I am sure that in an effort to get that figure up, the hon. Lady will support the new clause. I am really pleased that she agrees with us on that matter.

The only message this Government want to send is one of supine support for tax dodgers. The dodgers may want to hear that message, but public sector workers who have not had a pay rise for years do not want to hear it, the people waiting months for an operation do not want to hear it, and the police and firefighters do not want to hear it. I assure Government Members that at the next general election, the public certainly will hear that message loud and clear, because Labour will be there to remind them of a Government in chaos and disarray that is beginning to have a putrefying decay about it.

[John Redwood]

I think that we all agree in this House that we need to collect substantial revenues to have decent public services and that we all condemn people who break tax law, evade taxes and commit crimes against the tax code. However, tax avoidance—the legal avoidance of taxation—is a more difficult issue.

Many Labour MPs trotted through the Lobbies under a Labour Government to make sure that individual savings accounts had tax advantages, and to support tax breaks for Members of Parliament who choose to save for their retirement through the pension scheme. That is a kind of tax avoidance. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Labour party no longer agrees with that kind of avoidance, which was recommended by previous Labour Governments in the interests of spreading saving? Is he of the view that there are certain kinds of avoidance that are perfectly reasonable, such as those undertaken by Labour MPs and others, and other types of tax avoidance that are also perfectly legal but of which he does not approve?

[Peter Dowd]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a difference between an ISA and institutional, systematic avoidance and abuse of the tax system?

[John Redwood]

There is a huge difference between breaking the law and living within the law. However, where Governments of both persuasions and the coalition have put provisions into the tax code that encourage people to save or invest in a certain way to pay less tax, that surely is the will of Parliament and the will of those parties, and we cannot object if people and institutions take advantage of it. The right thing to do—as I think the Labour party is now trying to do in some ways—in respect of rich people who come to our country to undertake part of their affairs but not all of their affairs, is to ensure that we have settled on a law that we think is fair and then to enforce it. Obviously we should take a tough line were any of them to break our law, but we cannot object if they take advantage of measures that have been put into the tax code to encourage certain kinds of investing or saving behaviour, in exactly the same way that most MPs take advantage of the avoidance provisions to save through a pension scheme or an ISA.

The subject of this debate is whether the assets of very rich people—often productive assets that they have saved for, earned and accumulated before they came to the UK—are a suitable object of taxation if they choose to do some things in the UK in respect of which they are clearly subject to our law codes and have to pay our taxes. In the past, Labour Governments as well as Conservative Governments have taken the pragmatic view that there is an advantage in very rich entrepreneurial successful people coming to our country setting up businesses, making investments here and committing part of their capital to our country; that we will tax that fairly in exactly the same way that you or I would be taxed, Mr Speaker, if we were making such investments on a much smaller scale; and that that is fair to us as taxpayers and investors, but that it is not our business to try to tax their assets and income accumulated or earned elsewhere that they have established by other means before, which are presumably being taxed in those other countries and would normally be governed as well by some kind of double taxation arrangement or agreement.

I would therefore just say to Labour Members who think there is a huge crock of gold here, which for some unknown reason successive Labour, coalition and Conservative Governments have been reluctant to pluck, that maybe they did not do it in the past because there is not, and that maybe we are quite close to that point. If we go further and further encroach on the legitimate income and assets of foreigners coming here, which are asset and income not actually in this country, we might get to the point where more of them say, “I’d rather go somewhere else. Plenty of other countries around the world would actually welcome the money, investment and income I wish to spend, which is going to be taxable in that country. If they are prepared to not tax my other income and assets elsewhere, then they will have the benefit of me rather than not.”

The art of taxation is finding the right balance, so the host country gets enough out of it and where there is obviously a fair imposition of tax on anything they do in that country alongside fellow residents of that country, while not deterring so many that we are no longer a great centre for people with money, investment and talent who would otherwise come here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bim Afolami]

I know that is a controversial view that many have. In particular, I listened very carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) from the Opposition Front Bench.

[Peter Dowd]

Quite right.

[Bim Afolami]

I am. The hon. Gentleman made some interesting remarks, but I am going to pick him up on one phrase, which we should think about and bear in mind as we look not only at the implications of new clause 1 but at the Bill as a whole. He said that the British public are no fools. As I listened to him expound on that, I thought to myself, “The British public in the public gallery and the many millions undoubtedly watching the debate at this moment are no fools and will realise that this Conservative Government, since 2010, have brought in more than £160 billion-worth of anti-avoidance and tax evasion measures.” The British public are no fools. They will realise that the Conservative Government, since 2010. have reduced the tax gap—the gap between what should be collected in tax and what actually is collected—to 6.5%, the lowest that has been recorded. The British public are no fools and will see that this Government, a Conservative Government, will abolish permanent non-dom status for the first time. Those are the practical achievements that the Bill helps to build on.

On the precise nature of new clause 1, I can do no better than agree with my dear and honourable Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), who suggested entirely accurately that the timing of such a review may cause disruption. It may be a significant disincentive and difficult from a business perspective because of the Brexit negotiations and the situation at that time. It is also important for us, whatever party we represent, to recognise that this Government are making the case for a sustainable fiscal policy that makes sense in the modern world.

We have heard from many Members on both sides of the House about the international context in which we operate. We are in a smaller world; we all know the impact that technology and ease of travel are having on every aspect of life. Bearing that international context in mind, things are more competitive. We cannot rest on our laurels.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

I think I have answered that question. It is probably time to move on.

Even with these protections in place, non-doms who become deemed UK domiciled will be protected from tax, as I have said, only on income and gains that remain in the trust. Any moneys withdrawn or benefits provided will lead to a tax charge on the individual. This is a fair system that has been carefully considered and consulted on since it was announced more than two years ago. It is simply unnecessary to introduce legislation to place additional bureaucracy and additional reporting burdens on HMRC, which already scrutinises non-doms’ compliance with the UK tax regime.

Government amendment 17 will remove and correct a minor inaccuracy in schedule 8 to ensure that the policy is delivered as intended. The change applies to part 4 of the schedule, on the cleansing of mixed funds. For the purpose of these rules, a qualifying individual is one who was not born in the United Kingdom and whose domicile of origin is not in the United Kingdom. The amendment simply corrects the Bill by replacing “or” with “and” when defining a qualifying individual. I therefore urge the House to accept the amendment.

These reforms have been carefully drawn up to ensure that we get the right balance between protecting the public finances, remaining internationally competitive and showing how much we value the contribution of non-doms in the UK. I therefore urge the House to reject new clause 1.

[Peter Dowd]

I thank the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) for referring to Plutarch, a Greek citizen who became a Roman citizen—but not a non-dom in that country. Our new clause would require a review to be undertaken on the effects of

“the provisions for the protection of overseas trusts in relation to deemed domicile.”

Like Queen Gertrude in “Hamlet”, Conservative Members protest too much. Why can we not have a review? That is all the new clause asks for: a review. What is wrong with a review?

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

The Finance Bill that is before the House is nothing short of a wasted opportunity. It is indicative of a Government who wish to serve the interests of a wealthy few at the expense of the many. That is a fact. Rather than introducing measures to bolster people in their daily lives, such as sensible proposals on investment, fair taxation, raising the UK’s woeful productivity and improving the terrible productivity in many of the regions, the Finance Bill will, if it is enacted, water down workers’ rights, bring added financial burdens to small and medium-sized businesses and exempt offshore trusts from any reform of non-dom status. It is telling that Conservative Members spent more time on the latter than they did on redundancy payments or digital taxation, which affects many of our small businesses.

This Government are enveloped in atrophy. They have done nothing to tackle falling wages, deal with rising levels of personal debt, or tackle poor productivity. They have overseen an economy in which women are paid, on average, 14% less than men, and in which there are large race and disability income gaps. They refuse to invest in the nation’s infrastructure or in the British people. Under Tory rule, Britain has become one of the most unequal countries in Europe. UK Government investment is lower than that of every other major economy. That is a fact.

Inflation is outstripping wage rises, while housing and energy bills are rising once more and our productivity is lower than in the rest of the G7. What a record after seven years. The public sector pay cap has driven down wages, and cuts to in-work benefits are leading to more people than ever using food banks, with 1 million food parcels having been given out. Meanwhile, the Chancellor boasts of high levels of employment, but is in absolute denial about the rising numbers of people in insecure, low-paid work that does not meet their needs and those of their families.

The Government have managed to stitch up Public Bill Committees, despite not having a majority, and they are using arcane rules to deny this House the ability to amend and scrutinise legislation. The younger generation feel betrayed after seven years of Tory austerity. The Government have trebled tuition fees to over £9,000 and abolished maintenance grants, ensuring that the average working-class student leaves university heavily in debt and with little prospect of relieving it. The bottom line is that the Tory Government are in complete and utter decay. The housing market is entrenching and extending inequality between regions, classes and generations. Quite frankly, we cannot support a Bill that does not put any of that right, so we will not support it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Jones]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. All our constituencies have some areas that are not yet fully able to access the important benefits of broadband. I will discuss his points with my colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government, and report back to him.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I am pleased that the Communities Secretary has been inspired by Labour’s fiscal credibility rule in relation to investment in infrastructure—including digital infrastructure and, recently, house building. But this does beg crucial questions. Does the Minister support his colleague’s bid to “borrow more to invest” or is it more a bid to steal the Chancellor’s job?

[Andrew Jones]

I have already outlined the Government’s progress on broadband. The hon. Gentleman mentions, I think, some kind of speculative comment regarding the forthcoming Budget. The Chancellor has already answered that question.

[Peter Dowd]

The digital infrastructure plans are wholly inadequate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) indicated. Is the Minister aware that productivity figures are at pre-crisis levels, and is he really aware that regional industries are up to seven times more productive than others? What is the digital investment strategy doing to close that shocking gap?

[Andrew Jones]

The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten the announcement of the national productivity investment fund—a £23 billion pot of money for investment in infrastructure, including digital infrastructure, across the country. I have already mentioned the £400 million digital infrastructure investment fund and the £740 million for full-fibre broadband and 5G. We are already approaching the figure of 95% of UK premises having access to superfast broadband by the end of the year, and that puts us in a strong place for the future.

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.

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.