Taxes on Small Businesses

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship today, Ms Dorries. I thank the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) for initiating this important debate. We all recognise that small businesses are the backbone of our economy. Most of us have a family member involved in a small business. They might work for or own a small business, or they might be a partner in a small business, so I would not like people to get the idea that the Labour party is distanced from small business. We are not; we are right in the heart of the small business community. The question is whether the Government have neglected the needs of small business in favour, for example, of tax breaks to big business that has failed to stimulate investment and create the high-skilled, well-paid jobs that the country needs. We have record employment but, as I have said in the past, the issue is not just about the quantity of jobs but the quality. I do not demean the number of jobs that have been created, but there has to be a balance.

Under the Conservatives, productivity trails behind our international rivals and British businesses are struggling to recruit the skilled workers they need. The Government have failed to invest in the infrastructure that businesses depend on and have presided over what amounts to a skills crisis. The approach we have seen from Ministers on business rates revaluation is only one example of the chaos at the heart of the Government. Their approach to business rates revaluation has created a huge and destabilising burden for many businesses, with many facing a substantial and unfair increase, which other Members have alluded to. Discretionary funds are helpful, but they do not solve the underlying problem. All that is in advance of the issue that the continued uncertainty around the Government’s approach to Brexit negotiations is creating in the UK business community, whether small or large.

Such uncertainty has led many businesses to delay investing in their people or capital, which is having the unintended effect of undermining the economy’s long-term prospects. No wonder optimism among small firms and businesses has tumbled to its lowest level in the wake of the referendum and the unprecedented political and economic uncertainty that we face. What we do about it is a different matter, but that is what we face, and that is the environment that people and small businesses operate in.

According to the Federation of Small Businesses’ small business index, a majority of small and medium-sized businesses report that operating costs have risen compared with the same period last year. Labour costs are up, taxation is up and rent is up, and all are frequently mentioned as problems. On top of that, the Government are out of kilter—I will go no further than that—in relation to Making Tax Digital. Stakeholders, including tax experts and accountants—we have discussed this previously—have queried the Government’s implementation date as well as the added cost that will be passed on to small and medium-sized businesses. I take the point made by the hon. Member who said, “You get used to it,” but to be fair, at what point do you have to get used to it?

What we might call the U-turn, or about-face, that the Government made during the summer, under the Minister’s auspices, scaling back plans for Making Tax Digital, was welcome. It pushed back the implementation date to 2019, ensuring an exemption for small businesses below the VAT threshold, and ensuring that businesses do not have to submit quarterly tax returns just yet. I do not criticise that; it is welcome. However, despite that volte-face there is still, in our opinion and that of many others, an impact on small businesses; an example is the unrealistic 2019 implementation date for Making Tax Digital for VAT. That date would mean that SMEs were expected to deal with the added costs and complications of digitalising their tax returns at the same time as having to deal with the added costs of Britain’s leaving the European Union. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) thinks that is a good thing and he is entitled to his opinion, but that is not necessarily everyone’s view.

There is also huge uncertainty over whether businesses and HMRC will be ready to implement Making Tax Digital by 2019, and we must take that into account. Perhaps the Government’s implementation timetable has more to do with the lacuna in the public finances. I do not know; I pose the question. According to HMRC, Making Tax Digital will raise £2.1 billion for the Treasury, although the Minister may tell me that that is not the correct figure. That money has probably already been spent; whether it is raised is a different kettle of fish. That is another factor for small businesses to take into account.

The truth is that the Conservatives are not the only party for small businesses. In fact, one could argue that in the past few years they have rewarded larger companies with tax cuts at the expense of SMEs. As to tax avoidance, over the past month we have seen the same story play out, first with eBay and then Amazon. We have heard about small stores in villages having to compete in the face of non-collection of huge amounts of tax from the likes of Amazon, which avoid their fair share of tax or run rings around HMRC. That affects small businesses because they pick up the tab.

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

I have been listening with growing disbelief to the hon. Gentleman’s running commentary of doom on our approach to business. He mentioned tax avoidance, but does he recognise that since 2010 we have, through our measures against avoidance, evasion and non-compliance, brought in £160 billion? We have reduced the tax gap—the amount of tax that should have been collected but has not—to 6.5% of tax. That exceeds any year when his party were in government.

[Peter Dowd]

I am pleased that the Minister has brought that to my attention. I bring to his attention Labour’s tax enforcement programme, as well as our manifesto, “Funding Britain’s Future”, and our industrial strategy. I am sure that the Minister has read those avidly and will no doubt revisit them.

SMEs find it increasingly difficult to operate around the tricky and ever-changing tax law while HMRC has been directed to crack down hard on them. The likes of Martin McTague, policy director at the Federation of Small Businesses, recently accused HMRC of going for the soft underbelly by tackling SMEs over tax avoidance and evasion rather than showing the same energy in confronting larger companies, and arguably, by underfunding and not resourcing appropriately.

[Robert Jenrick]

Will the hon. Gentleman answer the point that I made in my remarks about why the Labour manifesto included an increase in corporation tax for small businesses? If it cares about small businesses rather than large ones, why increase business profits tax for them?

[Peter Dowd]

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the totality of the document, about the whole environment in which small businesses would operate. It is not a question of one element, but the total environment. That is the point I am trying to get across. It is not one specific thing, such as tax for small or large businesses, but the complete environment in which businesses must operate that we must consider. The current environment is not the most conducive to business for SMEs, in my humble opinion. That is my view; Members may agree with it or not.

We are committed to putting small and medium-sized businesses at the heart of our economic policy. We value them.

[Mel Stride]

To pursue the point a little further, I understand that the Labour party’s policies are to put up the corporation tax rate to 26%, whereas we are going down to 17%. The difference is a huge gulf—a huge additional tax burden on British businesses. Has the hon. Gentleman’s party conducted any analysis of the impact that that huge hike in taxation is likely to have on jobs, wealth creation, taxes and our ability to fund our public services?

[Peter Dowd]

Of course we have.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

What’s the answer?

[Peter Dowd]

The hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, asks for the answer. We are here for the Government to defend their record, not for a defence of what Labour’s record will be. [Interruption.] It is okay for Members to laugh, but the bottom line is that the economy is in chaos. Only yesterday the OECD effectively said that the Government should rethink their position on corporation tax. That is not coming from me; it comes from our partners elsewhere.

We want to support small and medium-sized enterprises. I have made the point that it is ridiculous to suggest that they are somehow a foreign land to the Labour party. The country needs, and we have set out, proper investment in the economy and skills and increased productivity. We believe that small businesses can play a part in investment, in a rise in productivity and in helping with skills shortages; but in turn it is our responsibility to help them. I am not sure that they are getting the support they need.

Finance Bill (First sitting)

Peter Dowd Excerpts

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

[Anneliese Dodds]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Pensions advice

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

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

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

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

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

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

(2) The review shall consider in particular—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2) The review shall consider in particular—

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clause 3 stand part.

[Peter Dowd]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

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

[Peter Dowd]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

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

[Peter Dowd]

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

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to press amendment 15?

[Peter Dowd]

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

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Legal expenses etc

[Peter Dowd]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Chair]

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

[Peter Dowd]

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

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

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

[Kelvin Hopkins]

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

[Peter Dowd]

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

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

[Mel Stride]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Peter Dowd]

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

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

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

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

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

[Peter Dowd]

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

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

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

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

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

[Mel Stride]

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

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

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

[Mel Stride]

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

[Peter Dowd]

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Money purchase annual allowance

[Peter Dowd]

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

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

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

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

(2) The review shall consider in particular—

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

(b) the behavioural effects of the changes.

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

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

[The Chair]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

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

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

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

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

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

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

a. will create an anomalous position

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mel Stride]

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Peter Dowd]

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Dividend nil rate for tax year 2018-19 etc

[Anneliese Dodds]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finance Bill (Second sitting)

Peter Dowd Excerpts

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

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

“Chapter 3

Review of chapters 1 and 2

783BR Review of operation of this Part

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

(2) The review shall consider in particular—

(a) the use and effects of full relief,

(b) the use and effects of partial relief,

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

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

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

(a) the 2016 Budget, and

(b) the 2016 Autumn Statement.

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

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

That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anneliese Dodds]

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

[Peter Dowd]

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

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

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

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

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

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

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

[Mel Stride]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Peter Dowd]

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

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

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

[Peter Dowd]

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 18

Carried-forward Losses

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

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

“188FAA Review of operation of this Part

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

(2) The review shall consider in particular—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.

Clause 19 stand part.

[Peter Dowd]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

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

[Peter Dowd]

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

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

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

[Anneliese Dodds]

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

[Peter Dowd]

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

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

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

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

[Mel Stride]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Peter Dowd]

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Finance Bill

Peter Dowd Excerpts

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

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

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

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

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This amendment is consequential upon Amendment 2.

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

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

(a) psychiatric injury, and

(b) injured feelings.””

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

Clause stand part.

[Peter Dowd]

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

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

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

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

[Peter Dowd]

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

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

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

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

[Peter Dowd]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

I agree with that particular point.

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

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

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

[Peter Dowd]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Peter Dowd]

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

[Kelvin Hopkins]

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

[Peter Dowd]

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

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

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

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

[Peter Dowd]

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

[Mel Stride]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

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

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

[Lucy Frazer]

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

[Peter Dowd]

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

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

[Rachel Maclean]

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

[Peter Dowd]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cleverly]

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

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

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

[Peter Dowd]

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

[James Cleverly]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

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

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

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

[Peter Dowd]

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

[Eddie Hughes]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

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

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

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

[Peter Dowd]

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

Finance Bill

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to address the 1922 committee today.

The House considered the Ways and Means resolutions last Wednesday, and today is round two on Second Reading of the Finance Bill. We have just had wall-to-wall complacency from the Minister; it is as simple as that. Sandwiched between the two debates, we have debated the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. The legislative powers up for sequestration by Ministers are eye-watering and unprecedented, and they cover a range of areas, including finance. Quite simply, that process does not befit a parliamentary democracy. Parliamentarians— I use the word loosely—on the Government Benches should be concerned about their acquiescence last night. The hand-wringing, unprecedented ceding of power to the Executive was unbecoming, and it goes to the heart of the scrutiny on this Bill. [Interruption.] It does.

What next? The devolution of tax-raising powers to the Chancellor without discussion, challenge or scrutiny? Forced loans? Ship money, going back to the civil war? We will have the delights of considering in detail the Finance Bill’s 72 clauses in Committee in October, but that might change if the Government apply the principle agreed in the withdrawal Bill. Last night we saw all the incensed huff, puff and bluster of Conservative Members, their worry about the Government’s land grab on parliamentary sovereignty, evaporate, as if by magic, before our very eyes.

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

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He should be careful of complaining about scrutiny. There are rather more Conservative Members than Opposition Members here to scrutinise the Bill. The EU (Withdrawal) Bill, which he references, specifically excludes Ministers from making taxation measures. He should read legislation before commenting on it.

[Peter Dowd]

I saw a few tumbleweeds on the Government Benches last week. If there is a shiver looking for a spine to run up, it need not bother looking on the Government Benches. After last night’s vote, there were none to be found. The national interest is not synonymous with the interest of the Tory party, as most Conservative Members would like to think, although the word “arrogance” is.

[Philip Davies]

The shadow Minister says last night was an outrage. Does he agree with his friends and acolytes in Momentum who said on Twitter that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) is a “scab” for voting with the Government last night on the EU (Withdrawal) Bill? Does he agree or disagree?

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) is a hero.

[Anna Soubry]

I would make exactly the same point as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). How many Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), voted in favour of last night’s Bill?

[Peter Dowd]

Conservative Members acquiesced in their droves, and it is a shame—it is absolutely shocking—that they did so.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Dowd]

In a moment.

Last week, we witnessed the Brexit Secretary, also known as Britain’s Brexit bulldog and master negotiator, on the receiving end of more punches from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, than a well-oiled guest at a summer Tory Pimm’s party. What a cocktail of horrors it must have been for the Brexit Secretary.

[Mr Harper]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could help the hon. Gentleman, as he is five minutes into his speech and appears not to have noticed that we are debating the Finance Bill. I thought the debate on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, to which he has devoted all his remarks, took place yesterday. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I could not quite hear the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order, but I am guessing what I thought he probably said. I must say that the content of the speech by the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) is not a matter for me, but I am aware that we are discussing only the Finance Bill and we must stick to that. The Bill is, however, wide and varied. I have it here and I have looked at it —[Laughter.] And I will make absolutely certain that nobody speaks outwith the order that is due.

[Peter Dowd]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Your judgment is wonderful, as ever, on these matters.

What a cocktail of horrors it must have been for the Brexit Secretary. I almost felt sorry for him by the time my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras had finished his humiliating dissection of his case—but not quite. If squirming was an Olympic sport, the Brexit Secretary would have won a gold medal, hands down.

[John Redwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that when a Minister brings a statutory instrument to the House, it can be debated by the House and voted down if the House does not like it? That is a parliamentary process; it means Parliament is in control.

[Peter Dowd]

It depends on the nature of the order, so let us move on.

I come to the future economic credibility of the country, where we have David the deluded, Boris the blunderer and Liam the loner—what a team! They would be out of their depth in a puddle. Regrettably, the importance of the Ways and Means resolutions and the Finance Bill has been somewhat overshadowed by the Brexit debate, notwithstanding its significance. That has given the Government a collateral opportunity to sneak the Finance Bill through while everybody else’s attention is elsewhere. That is a murky approach to the respect that should be afforded to Parliament, but this caliginous Government are bent on pursuing it, come what may. The Chancellor, who has now gone, doubtless to check his spreadsheets, commented from a sedentary position last week that the Ways and Means resolutions were just “technical”. There is nothing technical about aiding and abetting non-doms to avoid paying taxes. There is nothing technical about legislating to tax those who have been injured on grounds of discrimination.

Let us consider the following:

“the economy we have today is creating neither prosperity nor justice.”

Those are not my words but the words of the Institute for Public Policy Research in its recent publication “Time for Change”.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I am a bit perplexed by the hon. Gentleman’s comments about non-doms, because those of us with long memories will recall a long stretch under the Labour Government when each year they promised to do something about non-doms but then did nothing at all, until they were humiliated into action by the previous Chancellor. Our Government are now taking further action, but the Opposition are critical of that, whereas I would have thought they would be supportive.

[Peter Dowd]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman’s memory is wrong about that, as are the memories of some Ministers, and I will come on to discuss that in a moment. This Finance Bill does little, if anything, to address the legitimate concerns raised in the IPPR report. On being provided with his speech last week, I suspect even the Financial Secretary asked—if only himself—whether he really had to present more worn out, tired platitudes that pass for Tory economic policy. He drew the short straw—a very short straw; in fact, he was the only one in the ballot. He was both the warm-up act and the main act. The Chief Secretary graced us with her presence for a short time and then went off with the Chancellor, calculator in hand, to work out how they will pay for all their U-turns.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

On U-turns and our national debt, will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether it is still Labour policy to spend £100 billion clearing all outstanding student debt?

[Peter Dowd]

I do not mind Government Members making up their policies on the hoof, but they should have respect and not make ours up on the hoof.

As I was saying, when the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary waltzed off, they left the Financial Secretary to do the business, and he did a very good job last week. He managed to keep a straight face throughout his adumbration of how remarkably well the economy is doing, but amnesia had taken hold.

[Vicky Ford]

I return to the £100 billion costing of university fees, where the hon. Gentleman seemed to be unsure whether or not this was still his policy. We are debating the Finance Bill, so if that was his policy, how would he intend to finance it?

[Peter Dowd]

Far be it from me to give advice, but the hon. Lady should go to a dictionary to find out the difference between “a debt” and “a fee”. She clearly does not know what she is talking about. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has important questions to answer.

[Peter Dowd]

Thank you, once again, Madam Deputy Speaker.

In the Financial Secretary’s enthusiasm to explicate the Government’s record on the economy, he made no mention of a number of important elements that the 72 clauses in this Bill do nothing to deal with.

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Gentleman has been asked twice whether or not it is still the Labour party’s policy to clear all student debt—a policy on which the party garnered a great deal of votes at the last election—but I did not hear an answer. Will he tell us, in clear Yorkshire terms of yes or no: is that still Labour party policy? Many people want to know these things. Just a yes or no will do.

[Peter Dowd]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

It is not for us to provide answers for the Government; it is for the Government to provide answers for us. More importantly, has my hon. Friend noticed that the Government no longer talk about their “economic strategy”? Does he know why that is? It is because they have not got one any more.

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend is an experienced Member and he has hit the nail on the head.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Our party’s policy was clearly stated in our manifesto—it was to abolish all tuition fees. That is a damn sight better than the position we have seen this week, whereby the Chancellor has had to ask for 250-word submissions from his Back Benchers on ideas for student finance. They are the Government, but the Opposition have a clearer policy than the people running the country.

[Peter Dowd]

They make it up as they go along.

May I jog the Financial Secretary’s memory? He forgot to mention the £1.7 trillion national debt, which, as it happens, has grown by more than £2 billion since he sat down at around 7 o’clock last Wednesday.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Questions have been asked of the hon. Gentleman and I would like to hear the answers. I cannot hear what he is saying.

[Peter Dowd]

While I am on the subject, since the Financial Secretary stood up around 25 minutes ago, £4 million has been added to the national debt. If Government Members do not recognise those Office for National Statistics-based calculations, they may wish to make up their own, which is what the Chancellor seems to do fairly regularly.

The Financial Secretary also forgot to mention the fact that median incomes in the north-west, south-west and west midlands are 30% lower than those in London and the south-east, and 35% and 22% lower than those in Wales and Scotland respectively.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Peter Dowd]

No, I have given way a significant number of times already.

In the context of higher unemployment levels, the Financial Secretary forgot to mention the insecure and casual labour market that is taking hold in various sectors, with 15% of people employed in such jobs. He also forgot to mention the 6% of people on short-term contracts and the 3% and growing on zero-hours contracts.

The Financial Secretary forgot to mention any plan to deal with the 4 million children, or nearly a third of them, who live in poverty—and that number is on the up. All that adds up to the UK—this wonderful, halcyon Britain—being one of the most unequal places in western Europe.

So, what have the Government done about it and what are their intentions? British productivity is dreadful: since 2010 it has flatlined, at the very least. We remain 13% behind the average of the G7 richest nations, and when we compare ourselves to Germany, the bête noire of many Brexiteers on the Government Benches, we lag behind by 30%. There has been no action from the Government.

Investment levels are grim. Investment is at the heart of any growth in either the private or public spheres, but it appears to be pretty short-term in many sectors. Brexit uncertainty is exacerbating that, but we should not use that as an alibi because low investment levels pre-date the Brexit debate. There has been no action from the Government on that. The question is: does the Finance Bill do anything of significance to put any of those problems right? What is the answer? No action.

What about inflation? Well, there is no action there either. The inflation rate, now at 2.9%, climbed last month to its joint highest level in more than five years, given the rise in the price of petrol and clothing. According to the ONS, clothing and footwear prices had the biggest impact on the headline inflation rate in August, climbing 4.6% year-on-year to their highest level since records began.

Even the Government’s analysis of the loosening of the rules governing non-dom giveaways, such as the so-called business investment relief, says it has had a negligible effect on investment. While we are on non-doms, we have heard once again the false promise that the Bill will curb it for many. How can we believe such claims when an entire part of schedule 8 is called “Protection of overseas trusts”? That is what this Government like to do: protect people’s overseas trusts. Ministers may not have thought that we would notice, but they made absolutely sure that non-doms knew that nothing would change if they squirrelled their wealth away in trusts.

As a result of the moves to undermine the rules on what can qualify as a Northern Ireland company, corporations will find it easier to shop around within the UK for where to put their brass plates. How does it benefit the people of Northern Ireland if we reduce the amount of jobs and investment that a company must make to qualify as a Northern Ireland company?

The changes to the tax treatment of termination payments will mean that people who lose their jobs may face higher tax bills when they are least able to pay—people like the thousands of HMRC employees in my constituency, and in others, who are being forced to choose between relocating or being given their P45s. They are undervalued, underpaid and under-resourced, and soon to be over-taxed if the Government get their way. The Office of Tax Simplification said that the change

“is likely to have a significant cost impact for some people, particularly those lower paid employees who may more often be the ones receiving smaller termination payments; who are, after all, losing their job.”

No evidence has been produced to show that the proposals will simplify very much. The Government must stop looking to ordinary workers to pay for their mismanagement of the public finances. Instead, they should stop the smoke and mirrors games and get serious on tax avoiders.

The Bill, like the Conservative Government who produced it, is not fit to deal with the problems that the country faces. Even the Tory party membership are recognising that. More importantly, though, the country is recognising that. So, in the spirit of Brexit: auf wiedersehen, au revoir and goodbye!

Ways and Means

Peter Dowd Excerpts

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

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Charlie Elphicke]

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

[Peter Dowd]

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

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

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

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

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

[Peter Dowd]

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

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

Name them.

[Peter Dowd]

I can name them.

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

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

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

[Rachel Maclean]

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

[Peter Dowd]

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

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

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

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

[Peter Dowd]

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

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

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

[Peter Dowd]

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

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

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

[Steve McCabe]

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

[Peter Dowd]

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

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

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is right to warn of the danger of a loss of market confidence in UK fiscal policy—I am looking very hard at the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). If markets lose confidence in UK fiscal policy, they will re-price lending to the United Kingdom. We already spend more every year on servicing our debt than on our armed forces and police services together. It would do a huge disservice to taxpayers in this country if we created conditions that would cause the cost of that debt to rise.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

An enfeebled Chancellor has been forced to give a £1 billion bung to the Democratic Unionist party, to cough up £1.3 billion for a schools funding U-turn, to scurry around to find £2 billion to pay for his humiliating national insurance contributions debacle and to bail out his nightmare neighbour’s social care retreat with £2 billion. Why should this House believe a word, a promise, a claim or a target on reducing the debt?

[Mr Hammond]

I was glad to see the hon. Gentleman smiling by the end of that little rant. I do not know which planet he lives on, but I do not feel particularly enfeebled. I do not know what the Labour Treasury team does all day, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education made it clear in her statement yesterday that she has put extra money into the frontline schools budget by reprioritising the wider education budget and finding efficiencies across her Department. That is the way to do a fiscally prudent protection of our public services.

[Peter Dowd]

Yes, the Government have taken it off some children and given it to others.

The national debt has risen by £707 billion since 2010 and is rising. It is barely a year since the Chancellor was given the keys to No. 11, and in that time public sector net debt has not been reduced. According to the Office for National Statistics and the OBR, it has increased by £122 billion. Given that lamentable record, has he been given notice of eviction by the woman in the bunker next door? Perhaps they may leave Downing Street in the same removal van.

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman will know—I say that, but perhaps he will not—that public sector net debt will continue to grow until the deficit is eliminated. That is a simple arithmetic fact. His Government pushed our deficit up to almost 10% of GDP, and we have spent the past seven years getting it down to 2.4% of GDP. We will carry on getting the deficit down so that this country’s public finances get back into balance. We are a responsible Government, planning for Britain’s future.

Balancing the Public Finances

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship today, Ms Ryan. I welcome the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to his position. I have no doubt we will have many of these debates in future. I thank the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) for tabling this debate on this important issue and on the need for Governments to balance the books. I also thank hon. Members for inviting me to the 1922 Committee. It is a pleasure. That was a joke—give it a bit of thought and try to keep up.

It is worth looking at the Conservative Government, in which the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean was a Minister for six years when all those decisions were made. Since coming to office, the Conservative Government have consistently failed to balance the books and to abolish the deficit, despite continually pledging to do so.

[Andrew Selous]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Dowd]

May I get further into my speech? I will then be happy to give way.

First, it was promised that the deficit would be abolished by 2015. Then it was pushed back to 2020. We have now been told by the Chancellor that it is likely that it will not be abolished until 2025. The phrase used in the Conservative manifesto—hon. Members will appreciate that I read it avidly—was

“by the middle of the next decade”.

A full 10 years after the former Chancellor originally pledged to do it, and a full 15 years since the Conservatives started making the promise, the books still will not be balanced.

[Andrew Selous]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that our task of reducing the deficit would have been easier or more difficult if we had acceded to the Labour party’s continual requests for more spending and its opposition to every single reduction in spending that we put through?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am not going to get into hypotheticals or “what ifs” in this debate. We are looking to the future. That was promised. [Interruption.] I am sorry; I did not hear what was said. That was promised, but the Conservatives failed to deliver. I do not think that there is a case in modern political history of a British Government so regularly failing to meet their own economic targets.

[Royston Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Dowd]

In a moment, if I may.

A Government can balance the books in many ways, and very many difficult decisions have had to be taken during the past seven years. No one doubts that. However, this Government chose the path of austerity over the long-term prosperity of everyone in the country. Some hon. Members have said that that was not a choice, but it was. The Government chose to cap public sector wages and to cut local council budgets by 40% and in certain cases by as much as 60%, with more on the way.

[James Cartlidge]

Does the hon. Gentleman remember that the 2010 Labour manifesto promised a 1% cap on public sector pay? Does he think that that was because the Labour party does not support public sector workers, or because it was the right thing to do given the circumstances of the economy?

[Peter Dowd]

The reality is that that pay cap has now been institutionalised. It has been there for virtually a decade and it will continue. The Government have also chosen to underfund the NHS and cut £4.6 billion from social care, and they now threaten huge cuts for schools. However, despite those huge and deeply unfair budget cuts to public services, the Government have been able to find £70 billion of tax cuts for those who need them least of all.

Throughout the election campaign, which I might add is a happy memory, we were told that there was no magic money tree that could be used to solve the nation’s financial problems. If anything was magic about it, it was that it turned into a cherry tree, and the Prime Minister proceeded to pick the cherries and hand at least £1 billion-worth to the Democratic Unionist party to keep her in No. 10.

[Alex Chalk]

Under the previous Labour Government, low-paid workers were required to pay tax on earnings above about £6,500. The position now is that they do not pay it on earnings up to about £11,500. Is it not a positive thing to take low-paid people out of tax? Does the hon. Gentleman not welcome that?

[Peter Dowd]

Yes, I welcome anything that helps the low-paid, but that is not the only element in someone’s life chances or in people’s prosperity. The reality is that there was a mendacity in the deal with the DUP that will take a long time to be wiped clean.

Similarly, the Chancellor, in the spring Budget, was able to find a temporary £2 billion to backfill the cuts to social care and then further money to do a U-turn on raising national insurance contributions for the self-employed. There was a bit of cherry-picking there as well. It is clear that the Tories can find money when it is needed to oil the palms of certain people in order to assist the Prime Minister in retaining the tenancy of No. 10, and it is all dressed up as being in the national interest. That is not real and it is not acceptable.

When it comes to the long-term health of our economy and a wage rise for dedicated nurses and teachers, there is no money. They will have to continue with the pay they have, year in, year out. The truth is that austerity is not a necessity, but has been used by the Government to fulfil the ideological aim of shrinking the state beyond comprehension and privatising public services. That is a choice that the Government made. They should simply acknowledge that.

There are countless examples of countries taking a different approach. One hon. Member referred to Greece, and another referred to Portugal. The Government of Portugal, our oldest ally, have reduced the country’s deficit faster than us, but simultaneously they have restored state pensions, wages and working hours to pre-bail-out levels, and they managed that without crippling austerity. When we use examples, let us have a spread of international examples.

The well-off have done much better in austerity Britain. Meanwhile, those in the public sector have not seen their wages increase. The richest 100 families in the UK have seen their wealth increase by £55.5 billion. The Public Accounts Committee has reported that, while income tax for all taxpayers has risen by 9% under this Government, income tax receipts from high-net-worth individuals have fallen by 20% since 2009-10. That is typical of this Government’s approach: those who had nothing to do with the global financial crisis—the bulk of low and middle-income households—are made to pay the price of austerity through slashed services, increased taxes and falling wages, while the richest in society and big corporations get greater tax benefits. The old chestnut that we are all in this together is still trotted out.

[Rachel Maclean]

I made this point in my speech, to which I refer the hon. Gentleman. Does he not agree that the richest 1% in our country are set to provide 27% of all income tax revenue in 2016-17, and that that is a higher proportion than it was under the Labour Government?

[Peter Dowd]

The hon. Lady made that point before, and I will repeat the point that I have just made. The claim is that we are all in this together, but Newcastle University has showed that, while my constituents saw a £195 per head reduction in spending by my local authority between 2010 and 2015, the constituency of the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean had cuts of only half that amount. If we are all in it together, is that fair or reasonable? It is not reasonable. Of course we need to balance the books, but doing it fairly rather than by cherry-picking is crucial. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has reported that for the Government to reach their target, they will have to find an additional £15 billion-worth of spending cuts or tax rises.

There is another question that we must ask ourselves. If this issue is so important, why are we waiting for the Finance Bill? We have waited and waited for the Finance Bill. I hope we get it this side of Christmas—we might get it next Pancake Thursday. I hope we get it on the Floor of the House so that we can debate it.

We can either carry on with the redundant approach of industrial-size spending cuts for most people and tax cuts for the rich and corporations, leading to an economy in the doldrums and falling household incomes, or we can start investing in our country, ensure that everyone pays their fair share, and use a growing economy to help to balance the public finances. We need a real long-term economic plan, without magic cherry trees, without bungs and smoke and mirrors, and without a Prime Minister who barely has the support of her Cabinet, let alone her party, and certainly not the country. We need a long-term economic plan for the many, not the few, and given the state of the Tory party under the Prime Minister, I do not think that that is far away.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Peter Dowd Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 25th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)]

I will speak briefly, as we have a fair amount to get through this afternoon. Obviously, I shall attempt to address any points that are made during the debate.

The Bill is progressing on the basis of consensus and therefore, at the request of the Opposition, we are not proceeding with a number of clauses. However, there has been no policy change. These provisions will make a significant contribution to the public finances, and the Government will legislate for the remaining provisions at the earliest opportunity, at the start of the new Parliament. The Government remain committed to the digital future of the tax system, a principle widely accepted on both sides of the House. We recognise the need for the House to consider such measures properly, as called for by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) and his Treasury Committee. That is why we have decided to pursue those measures in a Finance Bill in the next Parliament, in the light of the pressures on time that currently apply.

Clauses 1 and 3 provide for the annual charging of income tax in the current financial year and maintain the basic, higher and additional rates at the current level. The annual charge legislated for in the Finance Bill is essential for its continued collection, and it will enable the funding of vital public services during the coming year. Maintaining these rates, while increasing the tax-free personal allowance and the point at which people pay the higher rate of tax, means that we are delivering on important manifesto commitments. On top of that, as of April this year, increases in the personal allowance since 2010 will have cut a typical basic-rate taxpayer’s income tax bill by more than £1,000, taking 1.3 million people out of income tax in this Parliament alone.

Clause 4 will maintain the starting-rate limit for savings income—applied to the savings of those with low earnings—at its current level of £5,000 for the 2017-18 tax year; clause 6 will charge corporation tax for the forthcoming financial year; and clauses 17 and 18 will make changes in the taxation of pensions. Clause 18 legislates for a significant anti-avoidance measure announced at the spring Budget. It will make changes to ensure that pension transfers to qualifying recognised overseas pension schemes requested on or after 9 March 2017 will be taxable. The charge will not apply if the individual and the pension savings are in the same country, if both are within the European economic area or if the pension scheme is provided by the individual’s employer.

Before the changes were announced in the spring Budget, an individual retiring abroad could transfer up to £1 million in pension savings, without facing a charge, to a pension scheme anywhere in the world provided that it met certain requirements. Overseas pension transfers had become increasingly marketed and used as a way to gain an unfair tax advantage on pension savings that had had UK tax relief. That was obviously contrary to the policy rationale for allowing transfers of UK tax-relieved pension savings to be made free of UK tax for overseas schemes. This charge will deter those who seek to gain an unfair tax advantage by transferring their pensions abroad. Exemptions allow those with a genuine need to transfer their pensions abroad to do so tax-free.

Clause 17 will make various changes in the tax treatment of specialist foreign pension schemes to make it more consistent with the taxation of domestic pensions.

Clause 21 will simplify the payment of distributions by some types of investment fund. Following the Government’s introduction of the personal savings allowance, 98% of adults have no tax to pay on savings income. In line with that, the clause will remove the requirement to deduct at source tax that must subsequently be reclaimed by the saver.

Clauses 45 to 47 provide for the removal of the tax advantages of employee shareholder status for arrangements entered into on or after 1 December 2016, in response to evidence suggesting that companies were not using the status for its intended purpose and that it therefore was not delivering value for money. The status was introduced to increase workforce flexibility by creating a new class of employee, but it became apparent that it was being widely used as a tax planning device, rather than for its intended purpose of helping businesses to recruit.

Evidence suggests that companies, particularly those owned by private equity funds, were using employee shareholder status as a tax-efficient way to reward senior staff. In many cases, contract provisions were used to replace the statutory rights that had been given up, which was undermining the purpose of the status. That continued to be the case despite the introduction of the £100,000 lifetime limit on capital gains tax-exempt gains in the 2016 Budget. The Government therefore announced in the 2016 autumn statement that they would remove the tax reliefs associated with the status and close the status itself to new arrangements at the next legislative opportunity. The action that we are taking tackles abuse and increases the fairness of the tax system.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her opening remarks about consensus, with which I fully concur. We are here today to debate what is effectively a condensed version of the Bill for which my colleagues and, indeed, everyone else had been preparing, with a view to taking part in a number of Public Bill Committee sittings over a number of weeks to scrutinise properly the longest Finance Bill that has ever been produced. That is the context in which I shall make my comments.

The Prime Minister’s announcement outside No. 10 and the subsequent vote mean we do not have sufficient time in this Parliament to give the full Bill the proper parliamentary oversight it requires and deserves, as I am sure Members will understand. It is clear that the Treasury was unaware of the Prime Minister’s plans for a snap election—otherwise, it would not have introduced the longest ever Finance Bill—but the Opposition recognise the unique scenario we are in and the Government’s responsibility to levy taxes, and I am sure the Minister recognises our responsibility to scrutinise the Bill in as open and transparent a manner as we possibly can. That is why we have acted in good faith to ensure that a version of the Bill can pass before Parliament is dissolved.

Our approach to the pre-election process and the presentation of the condensed version of the Bill has been underlined by two concerns: fiscal responsibility balanced against parliamentary scrutiny. The Opposition have a responsibility to taxpayers to ensure as little economic disruption as possible; we will therefore not attempt to block any measure in the Bill that has to be passed to ensure business as usual for our public services, such as on income tax, and nor will we obstruct tax that is already in the process of collection. But of course we cannot give the Government carte blanche, as we have made clear.

There are many clauses in the Bill that we can and should wait to deal with until after the general election, as that would provide the opportunity for them to be properly scrutinised. The one exception is the soft drinks levy, which I will speak about later.

In relation to alcohol duty, the Bill includes measures that have already been implemented but that we opposed in the Budget resolutions. They include the Government’s decision to raise alcohol duty in line with inflation, raising the price of a pint of beer by 2p, a pint of cider by 1p and a bottle of Scotch whisky by 36p. As I said on Second Reading, rising business rates and rising inflation are creating a perfect storm for many small businesses. Therefore, the decision to raise this duty is a risk.

Another measure that we would have liked to avoid but that is included as a result of the necessity of the compressed process that this Bill is going through is the rise in insurance premium tax. It has already been doubled and this raises it further. Had there been a longer process, we would have sought to challenge that, as we did at the Budget resolution stage, so there is no surprise in this, but the reality is that the measure is already in effect due to the resolutions.

On tax avoidance, it is time for a wholesale shift in how we approach taxation and the treatment of self-employment given the rise of the gig economy in recent years. The Bill originally contained a number of initiatives, and no doubt we will come back to them in due course.

I welcome the Minister’s statement on the digitalisation of tax. It will be a great relief to many small businesses given the onerous requirements for quarterly reporting. No one is against a move to a digital tax system, but we do not agree with the rush to implement it.

A large portion of the Bill relates to the introduction of the soft drinks industry levy, which the Government have consulted on heavily and on which they have cross-party support in this House. The levy has popular public support, too, as a poll has indicated. I want to take this opportunity to pay particular tribute to Jamie Oliver and the Obesity Health Alliance, who have campaigned tirelessly on this issue and on the need for a joined-up Government obesity strategy, and I must compliment the Minister, who in her current and previous roles has been a strong advocate for the levy. We would like to see a review of the sugar tax levy in due course, if possible. The Minister might well wish to comment on that. I am sure that a range of issues, such as in relation to multi-buy discounts, could form part of this.

In conclusion, as a responsible Opposition, we will not stand in the way of passing a Finance Bill before the election, as that is a necessity. There are some measures that a Labour Government would bring back, and we will have an opportunity to scrutinise them in due course, but we need to get this through and we need to be responsible, and we will support the Government where required.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

I absolutely concur with the comments that you have just made, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that the Minister made about my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) and the right hon. Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie). May I comment on my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris), who is also leaving the House? It seems to me that some people have got time off for good behaviour.

May I just make a point about my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) and the Perivale scout group? He was very concerned about the insurance premium tax. I do not think he won on that point, but he has won on the sugar tax, which will save the teeth of the scout group. Good news for teeth; bad news for dentists, I suspect.

I alluded earlier to the fact that, as far as I could gather, this was the longest Finance Bill to be presented to the House. It had 135 clauses and 792 pages. It had clauses on pensions advice, overseas pensions, personal portfolio bonds, an employee shareholding scheme, an insurance premium tax, air passenger duty, duties in general, fraudulent evasion, digital reporting, data gathering and search powers, as well as umpteen schedules. Of course, each of the clauses and schedules has had some degree of scrutiny, but not necessarily the amount we would like, because the general election has rather unhelpfully intervened in our deliberations. But, as they say, that’s democracy. Scrutiny is the fundamental role of Parliament, so when we do not have enough time for that role, we need to ensure that measures are not simply pushed through willy-nilly. I do not think that they have been in this regard.

We must always have a balance between raising tax and the dampening effect that that can have on business and society. That can be a difficult balance to draw and I think it has been drawn pretty well today.

I have referred previously to the need to raise our game in relation to productivity in the economy. Higher productivity is a driver of economic growth. Whatever our position, I hope that, to some degree, the Bill will help to push up productivity growth.

On the soft drinks levy, to which the Minister referred, the primary school PE and sport premium will go up from £160 million to £320 million annually, there will be an extra £10 million for breakfast clubs and, of course, 57% of the public support the levy. The Obesity Health Alliance found that the levy could potentially save up to 144,000 adults and children from obesity; prevent 19,000 cases of type 2 diabetes; and avoid, as I alluded to, 270,000 decayed teeth. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to the review in a couple of years, based on the advice of Public Health England.

Some measures are no longer in the Bill, some will no doubt come back and we will bring some measures back before the House. We hope that those measures, in one way or another, will be scrutinised.

Corporation Tax Act 2010 (Part 8C) (Amendment) Regulations 2017

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2017 General Committees

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

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

I do not have much to say about this proposal, although I have a few questions that the Minister might be able to help me with. If she has time or the inclination, perhaps she might tell us a little more about the anti-avoidance measures. The number of charities affected is fairly tight. Theoretically, all charities could be affected, but how many charities have challenged the Treasury in practice? It would be helpful to know. I have seen a figure of £50 million for the cost. Can the Minister give any figures?

On informal consultation, I know that there was the conference, but can the Minister tell us a little more? Frankly, that is all I want to ask.