Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Luxembourg) Order 2022

Debate between Peter Grant and Lucy Frazer

Monday 5th September 2022 General Committees

[Lucy Frazer]

I thank the hon. Member for Glenrothes for his detailed and interesting questions. I hope to be able to respond to at least some of them. The hon. Member asked how the principal purpose test applies in practice. The answer is that HMRC has a long history of dealing with avoidance provisions of this type, and the same principles will be applied here, supported by existing guidance and OECD commentary.

The hon. Member asked about anti-fragmentation and the complicated wording; I assure him that it is standard OECD wording, which has been adopted by all countries. He also asked about any potential new capital articles. I would reassure him that the provision would cover any new UK tax on capital. On how arbitration works, the costs will be paid by the states and details of the operation are set out by a competent authority agreement. On whether article 26 complies with GDPR, the answer is yes, it is fully compliant with GDPR provisions.

The hon. Member pointed out the issues of beneficial ownership. He will know that the UK was the first country to introduce a public register of ultimate beneficial owners of companies—the people with significant control register. Recently, we have also introduced a largely public register of beneficial owners of overseas entities that own UK property, and we expect that new register will be useful in tackling tax non-compliance as well as economic crimes.

[Peter Grant]

On the question of the register of beneficial ownership, how effective—if indeed they exist at all—are the penalties for knowingly providing false information, or for knowingly withholding information? I regularly look at companies’ records at Companies House where it is clear from looking at the shareholdings that someone has very substantial control, yet the official register says that no one has significant control. When will the requirement to report that actually be given teeth, so that it becomes mandatory, instead of effectively voluntary as it is now?

[Lucy Frazer]

It is of course important that we have penalties appropriate to the provisions in any legislation. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are looking very carefully at the issue of beneficial ownership. He also asked about a wealth tax; there is no current intention to bring in any wealth tax. For all those reasons, I commend the draft order to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Customs (Amendments and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2022

Debate between Peter Grant and Lucy Frazer

Monday 27th June 2022 General Committees

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)]

I beg to move that,

That the Committee has considered the Customs (Amendments and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2022 (S.I. 2022, No. 615).

The regulations update the UK’s tariff schedule and correct minor errors in previous secondary legislation. Specifically, this statutory instrument amends existing tariff legislation that was laid before the House on 16 December 2020 and through which the UK’s first independent tariff schedule was implemented on 1 January 2021.

I want to highlight two aspects of the instrument. First, it updates a number of commodity codes—the classifications of goods within the tariff schedule—as laid out in a set of tariff reference documents. These are routine technical changes, which are needed to ensure that traders access the correct codes when trading in goods. Secondly, the instrument rectifies a small number of administrative errors in connection with three tariff lines for goods relating to chemical dyes used in pharmaceutical manufacturing, carpets and textile floor coverings. The errors relate to missing tariff duties on those goods in the legislation. For context, that is three out of about 16,000 tariff lines. Although traders were previously charged tariffs on the goods at the rates intended, and as traders expected, it was done inadvertently, without the three rates being set out formally in the tariff reference document.

After that was discovered during a review, systems were changed, so that traders were no longer charged tariffs on the goods, thereby ensuring that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs was acting lawfully in the interim while the error in the legislation was corrected. This instrument inserts the intended rates into the legislation, allowing HMRC to collect these rates properly and lawfully from now on.

As trade did take place on the lines before the legislation was corrected, HMRC must reimburse traders who were charged rates that were not reflected in the legislation. It is in the process of doing so. More broadly, I emphasise that the vast majority of customs duties are being collected as intended.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Can the Minister give us the gross figures for the total amounts overpaid and underpaid before the error was corrected?

[Lucy Frazer]

We are in the process of reimbursing a total of £1,382,000.90 to 601 traders incorrectly charged as a result of these errors.

In conclusion, this instrument updates the tariff schedule and makes limited corrections to address administrative errors. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.

New Wealth Taxes

Debate between Peter Grant and Lucy Frazer

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Peter Grant]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lucy Frazer]

I would love to, but I am coming to the end of my time.

[Lucy Frazer]

I am happy to give way.

[Peter Grant]

Thank you, Sir Edward, for intervening on my behalf. That is the second or third time that the Minister and her colleagues have quoted figures on how much better off certain people will be because of changes to the tax and benefits system. They have not yet been able to answer the question of how much of that additional income has already disappeared because of the increasing cost of the basic essentials of life.

[Lucy Frazer]

I anticipated that point, which is an important one, and we will of course bring forward more statistics for this year in due course.

North Sea Oil and Gas Producers: Investment Allowances

Debate between Peter Grant and Lucy Frazer

Monday 6th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I welcome the acknowledgement from the Government yet again of the vast wealth that currently lies under the waters of Scotland. Oddly enough, in 2014, it had run out, but there still seems to be an awful lot of wealth to be got from the North sea just now.

Will the Minister explain why the windfall tax was only ever applied to the energy producers? Why was it not applied to other companies that, just through good luck, became mega-rich almost overnight? I am talking about the big multinational tech firms, online retailers and the importers of shoddy, useless personal protective equipment that cost the public billions of pounds. Why are they not facing a windfall tax, at the very least?

If an investment allowance is appropriate, why is it not being restricted to investments in technologies that will reduce the carbon footprint of the North sea? Why is it not being restricted to helping to transform Scotland’s and the UK’s oil production away from carbon-based fuels to other methods? Why is it being used effectively to give an incentive to continue the exploitation of our carbon resources?

The Minister said that the Government expect to get £5 billion from the windfall tax. What would the amount have been if they had not applied the investment allowance? How much are the oil companies saving as a result? The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have expressed concerns about the lack of reliable detail to show that tax reliefs have had the result intended. How will the Government know that they have? What steps will they take to prevent fraudulent claims?

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Gentleman makes a large number of points. The reason we are taxing this sector is that these are extraordinary profits that have been made not as a result of anything that the companies have done, but because of the price of gas. The Chancellor also said that he would look at electricity generation, because that is riding on the back of gas prices.

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about decarbonisation and the oil and gas sector, I point out that capital allowances will be available for capital expenditure from the oil and gas sector that makes the production of oil and gas less carbon-intensive, which could include electrification.

Cost of Living: Fiscal Approach

Debate between Peter Grant and Lucy Frazer

Wednesday 25th May 2022 Westminster Hall

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for organising this important debate, and all Members for their valuable contributions.

Hon. Members have set out the concerns and struggles of their constituents. I assure hon. Members and their constituents that the Government absolutely recognise that families up and down the country are facing an unprecedented cost of living challenge at the moment. We understand that the cost of food is rising and that the cost of goods going up is hitting people’s pockets. It would be wrong of me to pretend that these issues are going to subside. We all know that the next few months are going to be difficult. I know that people are really worried. It would also be wrong of me to suggest that the Government can wave a magic wand and that there is some quick fix that no one has thought of to reverse all the price rises that are happening at the moment. These are global trends and they are driven by global challenges.

We recognise that these are serious issues facing our society, as the hon. Members for Barnsley Central and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) said. We are doing a significant amount. We have already done a significant amount to help the many families that hon. Members have spoken about. We have provided £22 billion of direct support to families grappling with the cost of living pressures, including the £1,000 that people on universal credit will get or the £1,000 that people on the national living wage will get, through the changes that we have made to those measures. Our support includes £9 billion of energy support to ensure that fuel duty is cut, and the council tax rebates of £150 for band A to D payers in England, as well as the warm home discount, which we have expanded to £150, and the £1 billion of household support that people are getting through their local authorities.

I recognise that it is important not just to talk about statistics or investment in global terms; we recognise that the cost of living pressures are affecting individual families. I listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Barnsley Central when he spoke about a public sector worker on universal credit who was struggling. I emphasise that a low-earning family with one adult working and two children under five will be £1,610 better off a year as a result of the recent changes we have made to national insurance contributions and the universal credit taper rate.

[Peter Grant]

Has the Minister bothered to work out how much of that £1,600 has disappeared in increased food and fuel bills since the announcement was made?

[Lucy Frazer]

Obviously, different people will experience different rises in the cost of living, depending on their circumstances. We absolutely recognise the rising cost of living, which is why we have already made a number of changes.

I will move on to the point that the hon. Member for Barnsley Central made about public sector pay, as did the hon. Members for Reading East (Matt Rodda) and for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) by analogy. I recognise the important work that public sector workers have been doing during the pandemic and in the ordinary course of business, helping to support our world-class public services. Hon. Members will know that last year’s spending review confirmed that public sector workers will see pay rises across the whole spending review period from 2022-23 to 2024-25. Pay for most frontline workforces, including nurses, teachers, the armed forces and police officers, is set through an independent pay review body. We will consider all recommendations from pay review bodies this summer, once those final reports are submitted. I also point out that many public sector workers will benefit from the increase in the national living wage that I mentioned. Two million people, many of them public sector workers, will benefit from that.

The approved mileage allowance payments, which the hon. Members for Barnsley Central and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) raised, reflect all the running costs of a vehicle, including fuel and other vehicle expenses, such as servicing, insurance and depreciation; fuel is only about a third of the cost included in the rate. It is up to an employer what expenses they pay their employees. They do not have to use the allowance payment amounts, and can instead agree to reimburse the actual cost incurred. Individuals are not liable to pay tax on the difference as long as they can provide evidence of the expenditure. As with all taxes and allowances, we keep the rate under review.

The hon. Member for Barnsley Central talked about NHS car parking charges. I am pleased that he recognised that NHS staff working night shifts benefit from no car parking charges, as do disabled people, frequent out-patient attenders and parents of sick children staying overnight, but I am happy to look into the matter further with officials.

I listened carefully to the ideas raised by the hon. Members for Glasgow East (David Linden), for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), and for Easington (Grahame Morris). I have previously spoken to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) about the housing issue he raised. I valued that conversation, and I thank him for raising those points again.

The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said that Labour restored people’s dignity, but the latest data shows that, compared with 2009-10, there are now 2 million fewer people in absolute poverty. The Chancellor, the Government and I are very proud of that statistic. I am very proud that, when Conservative Governments are in office—particularly this one—we have record unemployment, which allows people to earn a wage and support their families, whereas every single Labour Government has left office with unemployment higher than when they entered it.

I have set out a number of the measures that we have already taken to support people with the cost of living, which we absolutely recognise. We are also taking steps to boost the UK’s economy. I have not got time to go into all the measures today, but hon. Members know that the Chancellor has set out a long-term plan to boost the economy through capital, people and ideas, building on the progress that we have already made in in this area.

Bank Branch Closures

Debate between Peter Grant and Lucy Frazer

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

I am confident that banks will be carefully looking at how much it costs to run an ATM versus a people-staffed bank and will make those decisions accordingly, but we recognise the impact of branch closures on people and their communities, and the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) talked about the importance of engagement with communities. Since 2017, the UK’s largest banks and building societies have been signed up to the access to banking standard, which commits them to ensuring that they inform customers about any branch closures, that they explain the reasons for the closure, and that they clearly outline customers’ options for continued access to banking services.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lucy Frazer]

I am going to carry on because the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts, who secured the debate, made many points and I want to respond to them.

The Financial Conduct Authority has also set out its expectations of firms when deciding whether to reduce the number of their physical branches or the number of free-to-use ATMs. FCA guidance states that firms are expected to carefully consider the impact of a planned closure on their customers’ everyday banking and cash needs.

The hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Reading East (Matt Rodda) talked about the importance of going into a physical location for those such as the elderly and the disabled. As well as the innovations around mobile and online banking, there are alternative options to access everyday banking services via telephone banking and also, importantly, via the Post Office. The Post Office plays a significant role in servicing people’s everyday banking needs across the UK. The Post Office banking framework allows 99% of personal banking and 95% of business customers to deposit cheques, check their balance, and withdraw and deposit cash at the 11,500 Post Office branches right across the UK. As the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts pointed out, it is important that there is somewhere to take that cash, which is why the Post Office provides such an important service.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Peter Grant and Lucy Frazer

Report stage
Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

I thank all Members who have taken part in the debates on the Finance Bill so far. Today we are focusing on a number of potential amendments to the Bill. Many of the amendments seek to ensure the proper functioning of the legislation in response to stakeholder scrutiny and feedback. Others take forward responses to substantive issues that have emerged during the Bill’s passage. I will address each amendment in turn.

Amendments 1 to 8 to clause 36 relate to the Bill’s measures to establish a residential property developer tax, or RPDT. These amendments ensure that those holding a specific type of build licence giving them effective control of the land are subject to RPDT. That will ensure that the legislation works as intended, and closes a potential loophole.

Amendments 9 and 10 to clause 58 relate to the Bill’s clauses on the economic crime (anti-money laundering) levy. These amendments seek simply to amend clause 58 by replacing two references to “entities that are” with “persons”, providing further clarity by using terms consistently throughout the legislation.

Amendments 11 to 13 form part of the extensive action that the Government are taking to address the current heavy goods vehicle driver shortage. As Members will remember, at the last autumn Budget, the Government temporarily extended cabotage rights for foreign operators of heavy goods vehicles until 30 April this year to ease supply-chain pressures. That change was made on a short-term basis to support essential supply chains. These amendments seek to introduce an enabling power through the Bill to make temporary changes to vehicle excise duty legislation should the Government decide to introduce a further temporary extension of road haulage cabotage flexibilities beyond April and up to 31 December 2022. These amendments do not, in themselves, extend those flexibilities. The Government have made no decision to extend the cabotage easement. Any such decision would be taken only after consulting with interested parties, and in consideration of wider pressure on supply chains at the time.

Amendments 14 to 17 are technical amendments to clauses 7 and 8, and to schedule 1, which seek to abolish the basis period rules for the self-employed and partners, and introduce the tax-year basis from April 2024. The amendments will ensure that eligible taxpayers are able to benefit from certain tax reliefs, including double taxation relief, that are given as a deduction against tax rather than against profits during the transition to the new tax-year basis. The amendments are required to avoid an unintentional outcome of the basis period reform transition rules.

Amendments 18 to 30 address a number of technical points in the new asset holding companies regime to better reflect the original policy intentions. These amendments follow engagement with industry. They will make the rules of the tax regime clearer for companies that will use it, and will ensure that it can be more effectively implemented.

Amendments 31 to 33 relate to accounting standards. They make minor technical changes to part 2 of schedule 5, which revokes the requirement for life insurance companies to spread their acquisition costs over seven years for tax purposes. These changes will simply ensure that the legislation functions as originally intended.

I turn now to the Government new clauses and new schedules. New clause 1 and new schedule 1 will deal with provisions about regulations regarding freeports. These new provisions seek to build on our existing powers that allow us to introduce, amend and remove conditions to enable businesses to qualify for freeport tax reliefs. The provisions do that by allowing the Government to use secondary legislation to remove and recover those reliefs from individual businesses, if necessary on a prospective basis. This power could be used to enforce compliance. For instance, it would allow the Government to introduce new reporting requirements if needed, and to respond if companies did not adhere to them by removing reliefs or taking other action.

These provisions support our critical freeports programme, which will help to create employment in left-behind areas, and allow them to prosper with additional and much-needed investment. We look forward to seeing them, and the businesses within them, prosper.

New clause 3 and new schedule 2 seek to legislate for a new public interest business protection tax. Energy groups will often enter into derivative contracts to hedge their exposure to fluctuations in wholesale energy prices, and help to ensure that they can supply energy to customers at the prices fixed and under the price cap set by Ofgem. They will typically use a forward purchase agreement to buy energy in the future at a price that is fixed at the time when the contract is entered into.

The Government have been monitoring the global rise in wholesale energy prices very closely. We have a serious concern about certain arrangements whereby energy suppliers do not own, control or have the economic rights to the key assets needed to run their businesses, including forward purchase contracts. It is currently possible for an energy business to derive value from such a valuable asset for its own benefit and the benefit of its shareholders, while leaving its energy supply business to fail, or increasing the costs of a failure. The costs of that failure would then be picked up by the taxpayer or consumers, because it would trigger a special administration regime or a supplier of last resort scheme. These are special Government-funded administration routes that help to ensure that UK customers continue to be supplied with energy.

Ofgem is now consulting on a range of regulatory actions that it proposes to take to ensure that the right protections are in place in these circumstances. That work will ensure the ongoing resilience of energy supply businesses. However, it will take months for these changes to come into effect. The Government recognise that it would be unacceptable for a Government to allow business owners to profit from engineering this kind of outcome in the interim period, at great and direct expense to the taxpayer.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I do not think that anyone would argue with the intention behind the new schedule, but it is not so much a new schedule as a Bill within a Bill. It is 25 pages long, and it introduces a tax that has not existed before. It was tabled less than 48 hours ago, and as far as I can see there has been no consultation with anyone. Given that this issue has been known about for so long, why has it taken until now for the Government to table such a large, complex and unwieldy amendment to their own legislation?

[Lucy Frazer]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. The Bill has been tabled at this time because Ofgem has identified a risk related to energy suppliers in the circumstances that I have described. If that eventuality came to pass, there would be a significant loss to taxpayers if we did not introduce the legislation to prevent it. I understand his concern, but it is necessary for the Government to introduce this tax and to introduce it now, to ensure that these risks do not materialise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I am pleased to be able to make a brief contribution to tonight’s debate. I commend the three previous speakers, the hon. Members for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). It is unfortunate that the very inadequate time that the programme motion allowed did not give any of them the time they deserved, given the amount of work they put into their amendments.

I mentioned new clause 3 and new schedule 2 earlier, but “schedule” is a misnomer here. We are not talking about a schedule; we are in effect talking about the “Finance No. 3 Bill”, 25 pages long and intensely complicated. This is our one and only chance to get it right and none of us can feel comfortable that it was tabled on Monday, it is being debated on Wednesday and it comes into force on Friday—not next Friday, but the previous Friday. What on earth are the Government playing at?

I do not have an issue with any of the other important business that took up today’s time—nobody could have any issue with any of that. My issue is that when the Government knew they were going to table such a substantial, technical and complicated amendment at this stage, it was up to them to amend the programme motion to give a decent amount of time, because 90 minutes for this debate is ludicrous. Only the Government had the ability to put forward a change to the programme motion; and only the Government had the opportunity to consult with Opposition parties in advance of that amendment being tabled, or indeed to discuss it with outside stakeholders. Not doing so was a failure, unless the Minister can give a very good reason as to why secrecy was so important. Springing it on the House in this way was, I believe, an abuse of the Government’s powers and shows contempt for Parliament.

The aim of the new tax is laudable and nobody would argue against it, but we have been given no indication as to why the tax is the way to prevent the kind of behaviour that we are trying to deter. It appears that it is just because they can change the tax system immediately and make it retrospective, whereas other things would take a bit longer. I ask the Government this question outright: is the urgency because they have picked up intelligence that another major player in the energy market was about to cut and run—to cash in and bail out? If they cannot answer that in public today, I would appreciate it if they contacted me after, on a guarantee of confidentiality. To be honest, I can see no other reason why there was a need for such secrecy and last-minute panic.

The amendment is restricted to energy companies, but it can also be extended to apply to any other kind of company the Treasury chooses to designate. What is that for? Can the Minister explain what other companies might need to be brought in, and in what circumstances that might need to happen? The measure is only to be in place for a year, or for such other time as the Treasury decides it wants to extend it, and it can extend it as often as it wants, although only until 2025. However, given that the Minister has said that the amendment is essentially a stopgap until Ofgem is able to amend the regulatory environment to prevent these abuses in the market, just how lacking in confidence are they of Ofgem and its ability and willingness to fix this long-standing problem if they think it might need another three years before it is fully dealt with?

Paragraph 41 of new schedule 2 gives the Government the power to change the law retrospectively. No Parliament should ever lightly agree to such a power, but tonight we have been given no choice; we simply have not had sufficient time to look at the detail of that or to get the assurances we would usually want about what that power will and will not be used for.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) referred to comments from the Chartered Institute of Taxation, and the Association of Tax Technicians told me yesterday:

“We have a brand-new tax without any prior announcement, no consultation, little debate, which will be enacted before the next Budget, and will be effective from 28 January 2022. OK, these are arguably special circumstances, but is this a good way to run a tax system?”

The short answer is no, it is not.

[Lucy Frazer]

I shall endeavour to answer all the points raised swiftly, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) began by asking in new clause 6 for us to publish a review of the impact of the amount of tax working people will be paying. He will know that we have already published the “Impact on households” document in the October Budget of 2021 and the Office for Budget Responsibility already produces fiscal forecasts. However, he used the amendment to discuss the issue more broadly, suggesting that the Government were not doing enough to help working families. That simply is not correct, and he knows it.

We have cut tax for low-income families by introducing the universal credit taper rate, saving working families £1,000 a month. The hon. Gentleman will know that we increased the rate for the national living wage, and he will know about the half a billion pounds of household support for the hardest-hit families—not to mention the significant covid support that we have given the families who have needed it over the last 18 months to two years. However, the best way to help people to have appropriate incomes to support themselves is to get them into jobs, and that is why we have spent £2 billion to get young people into the kickstart scheme, and £2.9 billion to help the 1.4 million long-term unemployed to get into jobs, ensuring that we have a lower unemployment rate than comparable countries such as Canada, France, Italy and Spain.

The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) talked about the need to put more money into people’s pockets, and to support services. That is exactly what we did in the spending review, with a cash increase of £150 billion a year by 2024, the largest real-terms increase provided by any Parliament in this century. Only yesterday, I was pleased to see an announcement about levelling up education funding across the country.

The hon. Member for Ealing North mentioned the NHS and social care levy. I am proud that this Government are willing to tackle the really difficult issues that face this country. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) pointed out that if we secure sufficient funds, we shall be able to tackle waiting times and have more doctors. I should point out that it was a Labour Government who, in the same way, increased national insurance contribution rates by 1% in 2003, specifically to increase NHS funding. The hon. Member also mentioned the banking surcharge, but, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), tax rates for banks are going not down, but up—to 28%, when they would otherwise be at 27%.

A number of Members on both sides of the House mentioned the economic crime measures in the Bill, and the beneficial ownership register. I hope that those Members were present for Prime Minister’s Question Time this afternoon and heard what the Prime Minister said, showing that we are committed to introducing this legislation. However, we have already done a significant amount to tackle economic crime. Since 2010 the Government have introduced more than 150 new measures and invested more than £2 billion in HMRC to tackle fraud. We do not want in this country money that has been gained through criminality or corruption—it is not welcome in the UK—and the international Finance Action Task Force concluded in December 2018 that we have some of the strongest controls in the world. Since then, we have strengthened those powers even further.

I will spend a couple of seconds on the new clause relating to tonnage tax, referred to by the hon. Member for Ealing North, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) and the hon. Members for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and for Easington (Grahame Morris). It is important to ensure a fair wage for our seafarers, who are recognised worldwide as some of the most highly skilled. That is why, in 2020, the Government extended the minimum wage entitlement to seafarers on domestic voyages.

The Department for Transport’s “Maritime 2050” strategy shows that we want a diverse and rewarded workforce, so we will continue to engage closely with industry and trade unions to support the training and employment of both British officers and ratings. I understand that the RMT has had recent meetings with the DFT and the Maritime Skills Commission on the training of ratings and has been invited to submit its analysis to inform further discussions. I wish I had more time to deal with that matter, but I will be happy to take it up further.

On the residential property tax, the hon. Member for Ealing North will know that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is actively working on the matter.

Climate change goals were mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, who said that there was not enough investment in businesses to incentivise them. However, in the last financial year, we issued £16 billion-worth of green bonds and set up the UK Infrastructure Bank to invest in net zero, backed with £12 billion of capital, which will also help to unlock more than £40 billion of overall investment in infrastructure.

For all those reasons, and many others, I urge hon. Members to accept the Government amendments, but not the others.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Peter Grant and Lucy Frazer

Committee stage
Wednesday 1st December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am not planning to take up all the allotted time until 8.52 pm, although I did warn my colleagues in the SNP group that I was going to take until half-past 8 and then go to a Division, which did not make me flavour of the month.

The Minister can put a bold face on the wonderful gift the Government are giving to the people of Northern Ireland, and to car dealers in Northern Ireland in particular, under clauses 68, 69 and 70, but this is just another sticking plaster over the botched job that Brexit has been, especially in relation to Northern Ireland. That is because nothing that is delivered to businesses or customers in Northern Ireland is any better than the deal they already had before they were dragged out of the European Union against, let us not forget, the express wish of a majority of people in Northern Ireland at the referendum in 2016.

The question is: how many more of these patch-up jobs do we need? I have lost count of the number of times that I have spoken in Bill Committees or in Delegated Legislation Committees pointing out that the only reason more and more legislation is needed is to fill gaps in previous legislation that had been put there to correct mistakes in even earlier legislation, rushed through by a Government who went into Brexit with no idea of what it meant and who ever since then have been trying to prevent us from understanding, and trying to conceal from the general population, just how much of a mess it continues to be. Anyone who says that Brexit has been got done either does not understand the truth or cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

In relation to clause 93 and schedule 14, the Committee will be aware that the approach that has been taken to free zones in Scotland is very different—or at least it would be very different if the Government were not so determined to force their lack of concern for workers’ rights and for the environment on to the proposals of the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government had a proposal that should have been acceptable to the UK Government but for two problems: it demanded net zero freeports or free zones and it demanded enhanced workers’ rights. What problem can the Government have with that? Why do the Government not want the Scottish Government to undertake action on green ports or freeports that delivers our net zero commitments? What do the Government have in mind for future legislation on workers’ rights if they were not prepared to allow the Scottish Government to build that into legislation around green ports in Scotland?

The Scottish Government had a productive dialogue with the Treasury. They were ready to launch a joint applicant prospectus for green ports in March, but it never happened. In September, the Secretary of State for Scotland made it clear that Scotland’s proposal was not acceptable to the Government. I do not know whether this is technically within the scope of what we are discussing just now, so it may not be appropriate for the Minister to explain it, but I, my colleagues on the SNP Benches, a lot of colleagues in the Scottish Parliament and a lot of businesses in Scotland really want to know why the Government are refusing to allow the Scottish Government to legislate for green ports to meet the needs of Scotland and meet the demands and values of the Parliament that the Scottish people have elected.

I will not be seeking to divide the Committee on any of these clauses. Quite clearly, they are all necessary. As my colleagues mentioned earlier, there are any number of parts of the Bill that we would have liked to divide the Committee on, but we cannot because of the crazy way that this place does Budgets, where effectively most of the big decisions are taken before there is any proper debate on them. That is not a sensible way to set Budgets that will impact the lives of every single person and every single business in these islands. I hope that for once the Government will listen to these representations and come back next year with a method of setting Budgets that is more inclusive, more in tune with what happens in modern democratic Parliaments across the rest of Europe and elsewhere, and will almost certainly deliver a better Budget and a better Finance Bill than the one we have just now.

[Lucy Frazer]

I will be brief. I am pleased that these measures have cross-party support. We can tell that because both Front-Bench spokesmen took the opportunity to talk about other measures that are not in the Bill. To touch briefly on what they said, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) will know that we do not support reducing VAT on energy bills because it will not protect specifically those on the lowest incomes, but just give a tax break to those on high incomes. We are therefore bringing in specified measures to protect those on low pay.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) talked about the Scottish green ports. We would like to ensure that the whole UK can benefit, and we remain committed to establishing at least one freeport in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as soon as possible. We are confident that our model embraces the highest employment and environmental standards, and they will be national hubs for trade, innovation and commerce. For all the reasons that I have set out, I commend the clauses and the schedule to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 68 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 69 to 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 14 agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill (Clauses 4, 6 to 8, schedule 1, clause 12, clauses 27 and 28, clauses 53 to 66, clauses 68 to 71, clauses 84 to 92, schedules 12 and 13, clause 93 and schedule 14, and certain new clauses and new schedules), as amended, to lie upon the Table.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Peter Grant and Lucy Frazer

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

I will just carry on to my next point, which is that there will be an increase in the social care budget in the spending review period.

A fairer tax system also means tackling those who avoid paying their share. A new economic crime levy will help to fund measures that will prevent criminals from laundering money in the UK. It will apply to about 4,000 businesses and bring in £100 million. The Bill also contains tougher measures to prevent promoters from marketing tax avoidance schemes. In addition, it includes sanctions to tackle tobacco duty evasion, which costs the Exchequer an estimated £2.3 billion a year. The Bill also clamps down on electronic sales suppression, a form of tax evasion in which a business deliberately manipulates its electronic sales records to reduce its recorded turnover and corresponding tax liabilities.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am pleased to hear about the Government’s commitment to taking on those who make money by promoting tax avoidance schemes. One such scheme that has been on the go for a long time is the loan charge. Can the Minister give us an update on progress towards bringing to account not the thousands of small-time self-employed people who have been caught, but the big players in that scandal? How many people have actually been surcharged or prosecuted for promoting loan charge schemes?

[Lucy Frazer]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for that question because I appreciate, since being in this role, that the loan charge is an issue that has affected many people across the country and that many MPs feel very strongly about. I have spent quite a considerable amount of time already talking about this issue not to only the chief executive officer of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, but to officials. I have also had the opportunity to meet HMRC officials who are dealing with the vulnerable people who may be subject to the loan charge and to ask questions about how they are treating them.

The hon. Member makes a really good point, because the real perpetrators in relation to the loan charge are those who offer these schemes and getting people on low pay into them. An issue I have raised directly with HMRC is how we can further prosecute and bring these people to justice. Unfortunately, I understand that many of them are located offshore, but we will be doing everything we can to ensure that those who are responsible for promoting this are brought to justice.

This Bill deals with those who try to get out of paying tax, but it also creates a simpler and easier system. Its measures make capital gains tax easier to navigate, doubling the window for reporting and for paying CGT on residential property from 30 days to 60 days. This will give people longer to work out what they owe and make it less likely that they will make a mistake. For businesses, we are creating a simpler tax system through reforms to basis periods, leading to a simpler, fairer and more transparent set of rules for the allocation of trading income to tax years.

There is no doubt that the pandemic has cast a long shadow over this country and our finances, but just as our wartime predecessors rebuilt from the blitz, now is the time to open a new chapter in our national story—one of economic growth and renewal, and with it, transformed lives.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Grant and Lucy Frazer

Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support. He will agree that the best way to support people is by supporting them into work and helping them to progress once they are in work. He makes an important point about communications. The Government run an annual public communications campaign to inform workers and employers of the change to the minimum wage rates. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs also has a dedicated team who actively provide information to individuals and employers on minimum wages, and the UC changes will also be reflected in the claimants’ statements once they are in effect.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

All those announcements are, of course, welcome for low-earning households in which somebody has a job, but none of them will deliver a single penny into the pockets of the very lowest-income households in which nobody is able to get a job. They are being hit by a £1,000 a year cut in universal credit. What is there in the Budget that will reinstate that £1,000 cut for the very lowest-income households on these islands?

Benefit Claimants Sanctions (Required Assessment) Bill

Debate between Peter Grant and Lucy Frazer

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 2nd December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but the Government have accepted a significant number of the Oakley review’s recommendations. Of course we need guidance, but there is already some guidance from the DWP. The guidance lists a number of examples, including:

“The claimant provides a statement that he could not attend the jobcentre because he had to attend a job interview thirty miles…from his home. The DM writes to the claimant asking for details of the interview time... The claimant provides details which clearly show that he could not have attended the jobcentre at the time and day specified in the written notice. The details are provided after the five days, but they merely verify the claimant’s original statement. The claimant has shown good reason within the five days.”

[Peter Grant]

Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?

[Lucy Frazer]

May I finish the point? Guidance is already set out in the DWP documentation. Obviously not every scenario is set out, but it is the job of those working at jobcentres to help those who come before them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

All the evidence suggests that over 90% of people do not go through the sanctions system at all, so the system works for a large number of people.

[Peter Grant]

Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?

[Lucy Frazer]

I will make a little progress.

I want to comment on three points that were made by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South in her speech. First, she identified that she was concerned about the facelessness of the decision maker, but there are many systems in other areas in which the decision maker does not know the individual. Many immigration decisions are made by someone who does not know the individual. Our judicial system rests on the basis that the judge is not familiar with the individual case and assesses those cases on the evidence.