Finance Bill (Sixth sitting)

Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2016 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 127 stand part.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

These clauses relate to the rates of stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax that are to be applied to share transactions and to options to buy and sell shares. Once again we are in the realm of financial derivatives, which members of the Committee will know I get quite excited about, given my remarks earlier in the week. I said that the Government need, for the national good, to identify the principles that will apply to the taxation and regulation of those markets after we leave the EU.

The clauses take steps to tackle tax avoidance by putting a stop to option arrangements that are being used to pay a lower rate of tax on the sale of shares. Such option arrangements are known as deep-in-the-money options—DITMs—which provide an option to buy shares with a strike price far below market value. DITMs are being used for tax avoidance purposes, as the Government’s tax information and impact note explains. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is aware of an increasing amount of avoidance in which DITMs are created in order to transfer shares to depository receipt issuers and clearance services. The result of that avoidance is that tax is payable only on the very low strike price, rather than the full market value of the shares. The measure makes the tax system fairer by removing the opportunity for avoidance arising from the transfer of shares using a DITM.

In order to tackle that kind of avoidance, clauses 126 and 127 ensure that shares transferred to a depository receipt issuer or clearance service as a result of the exercise of an option will now be charged the 1.5% higher rate of stamp duty or SDRT based on either their market value or the option strike price—whichever is higher. The change has effect from 23 March 2016 and applies to options exercised on or after 23 March 2016 that were entered into on or after 25 November 2015. I am pleased that the Government have taken the time to consult on the provisions, which they did between 9 September 2015 and 3 February this year. However, a summary of the responses does not appear to be available. Will the Minister therefore provide some assurance that the legislation will reflect comments made by respondents in the consultation?

The Government’s impact note expects the measure to generate £200 million in Exchequer revenue by 2020-21. Given that Treasury receipts from stamp taxes on shares are expected to total £3 billion in this financial year, rising to £3.5 billion by 2020-21, the measure is relatively small fish. However, the Opposition really support it, along with any other measures to tackle tax avoidance, especially those that Ernst and Young suggests will have a significant impact on deep-in-the-money options activity. We therefore support clauses 126 and 127.

Finally, will the Minister address what appears to be something of a peculiarity of the modern age and tell me the rationale for having a lower rate of duty for transactions that involve certificates than for transactions that are completed digitally?

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

As we have heard, clauses 126 and 127 make changes to stop the avoidance of stamp duty on shares, which will raise £155 million over the rest of this Parliament. They will ensure that the tax system operates fairly by closing an increasingly exploited loophole in which deep-in-the-money options are used to transfer shares to financial institutions or clearance services that then issue depository receipts that represent those shares and can be traded. The measure was announced by the Chancellor in the autumn statement. Stamp duty or stamp duty reserve tax, together referred to as stamp tax on shares, are charged on the purchase of shares in UK companies at 0.5% of their price. When shares are transferred to a depository receipt issuer or clearance service, a higher rate of 1.5% applies, reflecting the fact that subsequent transactions will no longer be taxed.

HMRC has become aware of a practice of deep-in-the-money options being used to avoid the higher rate charge and the Government have acted to stop it. A call option over shares gives their holder the right to buy the shares at a given price—the strike price—on or before a specified date. The price paid for the option is its premium. Deep-in-the-money call options have a strike price significantly below their market value and a high premium, which means the premium reflects the vast majority of the underlying value of the shares. When shares are transferred using an option, stamp tax is currently charged on the strike price and not on the premium, with the result that when purchasing shares using a deep-in-the-money option, tax could be based on the strike price of only a few pence when each share is really worth much more.

Deep-in-the-money options are being artificially created and then exercised immediately to transfer shares to depository receipt issuers or clearance services, avoiding a significant tax charge. Clearly that is not fair. As a result of the changes being made, the 1.5% higher rate stamp tax charge now applies to either the market value of the shares or the option strike price, whichever is greater. The measure applies to all options entered into on or after 25 November 2015 if they were exercised on or after 23 March 2016. This is a targeted response that will apply to a relatively small number of transactions where HMRC has identified clear evidence of tax avoidance. The change will apply only to transfers of shares to clearance services or depository receipt issuers and only when options are settled with shares, not cash. HMRC carried out public consultation following the autumn statement and no wider market impacts were identified.

The technical consultation was open from 9 December 2015 to 3 February 2016 and received three responses. Stakeholders questioned whether there was evidence of avoidance and the magnitude of the costing. HMRC has clear evidence that the Office for Budget Responsibility certified the costing so no changes were made as a result. Separately, meetings with industry bodies and depository receipt issuers have not indicated wider issues with the measure.

The rationale for costs for the differential rates is that stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax apply the same rates to paper and electronic share transfers. I hope that that provides some clarity.

In conclusion, the Government have acted quickly to close a new tax loophole. Clauses 126 and 127 will stop avoidance of stamp tax on shares, raising a significant sum for the Exchequer and ensuring that the tax rules operate fairly.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 126 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 127 and 128 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 131 stand part.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I will be very brief. Clauses 130 and 131 increase the rates of landfill tax in line with retail prices index inflation from 1 April 2017 and 1 April 2018. We have no issues with that change and support the clauses. However, it would be helpful if the Minister could provide the latest figures for the levels of waste being sent to landfill in comparison with last year. After all, the purpose of the tax is to reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill, so it would be good to know if it is working in practice.

On a similar note, the 2016 Budget announced a consultation on landfill tax reform over the summer. I understand that there is an intention to consult on amending the definition of a taxable disposal of waste at a landfill site and clarifying the scope of the tax. According to the ENTRUST website, full proposals are being set out in a document later in 2016 and any changes legislated for in the Finance Bill 2017. Will the Minister confirm the exact timetable, if he is aware of it, for that consultation?

Finally, as the Financial Secretary and the Exchequer Secretary will no doubt be aware, the Government carried out a consultation on reforming the landfill communities fund last year. The LCF provides funding for certain specified projects in an area affected by a landfill site. Draft regulations were then published that would make a detrimental change to the way the fund operates. The regulations proposed the removal of provisions for third parties to contribute 10% of landfill operators’ contributions to projects, and instead make it compulsory for landfill operators to fund the 10% themselves.

As the scheme is voluntary, stakeholders were rightly concerned that landfill operators would simply withdraw from the scheme and that an important funding stream would be lost. I wrote a submission to the consultation on the regulations, and I am pleased to say that the Government withdrew that particular part of the regulations, which were subsequently laid before the House on Budget day. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Ministers for taking my advice.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Damian Hinds)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Howarth. As the hon. Lady said, clauses 130 and 131 increase both the standard and lower rates of landfill tax in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in line with RPI from April 2017 and again from April 2018. She asked how successful landfill tax has been in reducing the amount of waste sent to landfill. Although I do not have the year-on-year figures in front of me, since 1996, when landfill tax was introduced, the amount of waste disposed of at landfill sites has nearly halved, while recycling rates have increased threefold. Of course, reducing landfilling of waste benefits the economy, as we make better use of valuable resources rather than throwing them away. At the same time it helps us reduce greenhouse gas emissions from decomposing waste and meet our climate change targets.

When disposed of at a landfill site, each tonne of standard-rated material is currently taxed at £84.40. Less environmentally damaging waste pays the lower rate of £2.65 per tonne. The clauses make amendments to the Finance Act 1996 to increase the standard and lower rates of landfill tax in line with inflation, based on the RPI, rounded to the nearest 5p. The changes will therefore see rates per tonne of £86.10 and £2.70 respectively from 1 April 2017 and £88.95 and £2.80 respectively from 1 April 2018.

Landfill tax already provides a disincentive to landfill by making it an expensive waste treatment method compared with alternatives. By increasing rates in line with inflation, we maintain the incentive for industry to continue the move towards a more sustainable circular economy. In addition, we know that certainty is important to the waste management industry. The clauses will mean that businesses can have the confidence to invest in new facilities and technology, knowing that those will offer a long-term, economically viable alternative to landfill. That is why the changes will set rates as far ahead as March 2019. The clauses provide certainty on both the standard and lower rates of landfill tax, confirming that they will not be eroded by inflation and maintaining the incentives to invest in more sustainable waste treatment.

I note the hon. Lady’s comments on the landfill communities fund. Of course, the Government decided to retain and reform that fund, and she is correct about the changes made and then adapted on the 10% contribution. The guidance from ENTRUST does encourage operators to make that type of contribution. The hon. Lady also asked about the consultation on the definitions for types of waste. The consultation runs from 26 May until 18 August.

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The clause increases the rates of band B air passenger duty in line with RPI. Band B rates apply to journeys more than 2,000 miles from London. From 1 April 2016 the reduced rate for the lowest class of travel will increase to £73 and the standard rate will increase to £146.

APD is currently charged on all passenger flights from airports in the UK except in Northern Ireland. It was introduced in 1993 and came into effect on 1 November 1994. Powers to set APD have subsequently been devolved to Northern Ireland and are in the process of being devolved to Scotland. APD raises a significant amount of revenue for the Treasury: £3.2 billion in this financial year according to the latest OBR forecasts. The measure is not expected to have an Exchequer impact but, as ever, businesses may incur a negligible one-off cost to update their systems, according to the tax information and impact note.

The increase with inflation has become standard practice, and with APD having been increased in this way for both 2013-14 and 2014-15, I see no reason to oppose it today. However, I want to use this opportunity to push the Minister on support for English regional airports, following the devolution of APD to Scotland and Northern Ireland. As he will be aware, the Scotland Act 2016 devolved powers to set the rate of APD and the Scottish National party intends to halve Scotland’s rates. Northern Ireland already has a rate of zero. During the passage of the Scotland Bill several MPs from both sides raised concerns that further devolution would put regional airports in England at a significant disadvantage and create a distortion of competition.

HM Treasury published a discussion paper in July 2015 outlining three possible options for tackling the issue: devolving APD within England; varying APD rates within England; or providing aid to regional airports. It invited comments by 8 September, but to date no Government response has been published.

When I took part in a Westminster Hall debate on the issue on 20 October last year, in my former capacity as shadow Exchequer Secretary, the Financial Secretary told me that the response would be published in due course, but to date I cannot see a summary of responses. In a recent written answer he stated:

“The Government is carefully considering the responses received to the discussion paper on options to support English regional airports from the potential impacts of air passenger duty devolution and will respond in due course.”

Perhaps he could take this opportunity to provide an exact date, if possible, for publication of the Government’s strategy to support regional airports. Aside from that and the other matters I have discussed, we will not oppose the clause.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the chair once again, Mr Howarth. I wish to speak only briefly. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles reminds us that the Scottish National party Government in Scotland have chosen to reduce APD. It is nice to hear that for once they have actually done something with the tax powers they have been given, because of course they have been dodging other tax powers despite having the authority to exercise them.

May I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles? The tourism industry across the UK is crying out for clarity on APD, because of the devolution issues. The differences in air passenger duty now make it financially viable for a family of five to drive from the north-west of England, the area that I—and your good self, Mr Howarth—represent, up to Scotland to save money. Those price differentials now mean that that makes sense, so they are damaging the tourism industry and the airport sector outside London.

The impression of the tourism industry—fairly held, I think—is that Treasury Ministers have been kicking the issue into the long grass for a long while. They have been looking for a solution, not finding one and then having a further review. My hon. Friend has outlined some of that. I therefore stress to Ministers again that there has to be a long-term and sustainable answer to those variables in air passenger duty. The existing situation is not sustainable, so the sooner we get a consistent and sustainable balance that the tourism industry can live with, the better for our economy as a whole.

[Damian Hinds]

Clause 137 makes changes to ensure that the rates of APD for 2016-17 increase in line with RPI, so that the aviation sector continues to play its part in contributing towards general taxation and reducing the deficit.

As the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles rightly said, APD raises a little more than £3 billion annually, so it is an important part of Government revenue. The increase in rates has effect from 1 April this year and was announced at Budget 2015 to give the industry sufficient notice of the change in rates. The low level of inflation and the rounding of APD rates to the nearest £1 mean that short-haul rates will remain frozen for a fifth year in a row, which will be to the benefit of about 80% of passengers.

The hon. Members for Salford and Eccles and for City of Chester raised the important subject of APD devolution and the options that the Government have been considering. To be clear, APD will be under the control of the Scottish Parliament, but the Scottish Government are still consulting, so no change has yet been made. The three options in the discussion paper published at summer Budget 2015 were correctly identified by the hon. Lady: to devolve the setting of APD within England; to vary the rates within England; or to provide aid to regional airports. The issues are complex and we continue to consider the various options. I am not in a position to give a specific date, but we will of course respond in due course.

APD is a fair and efficient tax, where the amount paid corresponds to the distance and class of travel of the passenger. The changes under the clause will ensure that the aviation sector continues to play its part in contributing towards general taxation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 137 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 138

VED: rates for light passenger vehicles, light goods vehicles, motorcycles etc

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

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The clause increases the rate of vehicle excise duty on certain vehicles in line with RPI for the financial year 2016-17. This is standard practice, as VED rates have increased in line with inflation since 2010. Labour has not opposed that and I have no intention of doing so today, but I have some issues to take up with the Minister.

I want to repeat on the record how opposed we were to the last raft of changes to VED made in the previous Finance Bill. These changes put a stop to the link between the level of carbon dioxide emissions and the rate of vehicle excise duty. There is now simply a flat rate after the first year, with a surcharge on cars that cost more than £40,000. We simply do not see the Government’s justification for removing incentives for lower-polluting cars. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified that. Aside from that issue, I am happy for this clause to stand part of the Bill.

[Damian Hinds]

Clause 138 makes changes to vehicle excise duty rates for cars, vans and motorcycles, with effect from 1 April 2016. For cars first registered prior to 1 March 2001, vehicle excise duty is based on the car’s engine size. The rates of duty for those cars and vans before 1 March 2001 increase by £5 only as a result of this clause. For cars first registered on or after 1 March 2001, vehicle excise duty is based on the car’s carbon dioxide emissions. There are currently 13 CO₂ bands. One rate is payable in the first year, and a separate, standard rate is payable in all subsequent years. For about 98% of those cars, the payment will be no more than £5 extra in 2016-17. That means that a motorist already owning a popular family Ford Focus will pay only £5 more.

First-year rates influence the purchasing choices of drivers buying brand-new cars. They act as a signal at the point of purchase that people can save money by choosing a cleaner car. In response to what the hon. Lady said about the 2017 reforms, it is not true that we have removed the incentives on CO_2. First-year rates have an extra effect: the so-called “sticker price” effect. There is also the zero rate for zero-emission cars.

We had a fairness and a sustainability challenge on vehicle excise duty. The sustainability challenge was due to the projected decline in revenues as more and more cars come into the lowest charging bands, and the fairness challenge was due to the fact that people who can afford only an older, second-hand car would pay more than those who can afford to change their car every couple of years.

This measure will mean that the highest-emitting new cars will pay first-year rates of £1,120—an increase of £20—and rates for the cleanest cars will remain unchanged at zero. The clause also increases the standard rate of duty for vans first registered from March 2001 onwards by £5 only. Finally, rates for motorcycles will also increase in line with inflation. Motorcyclists will see an increase of no more than £2.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 138 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 139

VED: extension of old vehicles exemption from 1 April 2017

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

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

This clause extends the exemption from vehicle excise duty to vehicles constructed 40 or more years ago on an automatic rolling basis on 1 April each year. The VED exemption is intended to support classic vehicles, which the Government consider—and I agree—to be an important part of the nation’s heritage. It appears to be a simple legislative change to create a rolling 40-year exemption, rather than requiring separate legislation year by year. We did not oppose the equivalent measure in the Finance Act 2014 when the Budget 2014 proposal for a rolling exemption was debated, and we do not oppose this clause today.

However, the Minister is not going to get off that lightly. I would like him to address a couple of my concerns. The policy paper indicates that the clause has no Exchequer impact, but the tax information and impact note for the original measure in Budget 2014 projected an impact of £5 million in 2016-17, £10 million in 2017-18 and £15 million in 2018-19. Will the Minister clarify whether there has been a change in the Treasury’s assessment of the impact of the measure, or whether the zero impact assessment relates purely to the technical change to the legislative mechanism, rather than the underlying policy?

Furthermore, the original note stated that in 2014-15 the measure will

“have an advantageous impact for the owners of around 10,000 classic vehicles...Every year thereafter, the number of classic vehicles will increase as additional cohorts of vehicles are included in the exemption. It is estimated that an additional 10,000 classic vehicles will be affected in each year of the scorecard.”

As of 30 September 2011, 162,734 cars and 152,836 other vehicles were exempt from VED on the grounds of age. Will the Minister confirm that the figure of 10,000 vehicles in the HMRC policy paper is additional to the figures in previous years, and will he give us an update on the total number of vehicles, either today or later in writing?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 17 be the Seventeenth schedule to the Bill.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

Clause 141 and schedule 17 provide for a reduced rate of excise duty for aqua methanol that is set aside for use or used as a fuel in any engine, motor or other machinery. That reduced rate, which is 7.9p per litre, will take effect on 1 October 2016.

The stated aim of the clause is to incentivise the uptake of aqua methanol as a greener fuel relative to petrol and diesel. In the 2014 Budget, the coalition Government announced that they would introduce a lower rate of duty on aqua methanol used in road vehicles, similar to the reduced rates that apply to other alternative fuels, to encourage the use of that cleaner alternative. That was to be legislated for in the 2015 Finance Bill, but the Bill that was introduced after the March 2015 Budget was agreed very quickly, with minimal debate, due to the timing of the Dissolution for the election. That was done with cross-party approval, but the coalition Government removed a few clauses from that Bill, with a view to introducing them at a later stage. Clause 141 is one of those.

Clause 141 and schedule 17 introduce that lower rate of duty. The schedule also prohibits mixing aqua methanol on which lower duty has been charged with biodiesel, bioethanol, bioblend, bioethanol blend or hydrocarbon oil. At the time of the measure’s initial announcement, the cost to the Exchequer was expected to be £5 million in 2015-16, £10 million in 2016-17, £20 million in 2017-18 and £40 million in 2018-19. The measure has taken a while to come to fruition, so perhaps the Minister can provide some up-to-date figures on the cost of the reduced duty rate. Further, the initial proposal, as printed in the 2014 Budget, said that the rate would be set at 9.32p per litre, so will the Minister confirm why the reduced rate will now be 7.9p?

Aside from those minor points of clarification, the Opposition are more than happy to support clause 141 and schedule 17. Indeed, I am glad that the Government are taking some action, however small, to promote cleaner, greener fuel, given the concerns about vehicle excise duty that I have outlined.

[Damian Hinds]

The clause will introduce a reduced duty rate for aqua methanol that is set aside for use as fuel in any engine, motor or other machinery. Aqua methanol is a new, greener fuel that is 95% methanol and 5% water. The reduced duty rate is intended to incentivise the uptake of aqua methanol, as the hon. Lady said, as a greener alternative fuel to petrol and diesel.

The Government are committed to improving air quality in the UK through the reduction of carbon dioxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions. Every year, around 50,000 people die prematurely due to poor air quality. Road vehicles account for around 92% of UK transport carbon dioxide emissions and 80% of nitrogen dioxide emissions in roadside locations.

Successive Governments will need to de-carbonise the road transport sector in the UK if we are to deliver on our commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions —as I know both the hon. Lady and I are committed to doing. Indeed, the fourth carbon budget requires successive Governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 51% relative to their 1990 levels by 2027. Any action to meet those targets will need to include the deployment of new greener alternative fuels, and aqua methanol is one of those. Incentivising its use has the potential to contribute to the UK meeting its air quality targets through reductions in the use of diesel, which is the largest source of nitrogen dioxide emissions.

In the 2013 autumn statement, the Government announced that the differential between the lower duty rate for alternative road fuel gases and the main duty rate for petrol and diesel would be maintained until 2024. In the 2014 Budget the Government went further, announcing that we would also apply a reduced fuel duty rate to aqua methanol. The clause follows through on that commitment. It introduces a reduced duty rate of 7.9p per litre for aqua methanol to the main rate of 57.95p per litre. The decisions on aqua methanol were outlined in the autumn statement in 2014 and the costings of the policy remain consistent with our forecasts at that time, although the delay to the introduction of the new rate means costs to the Exchequer have also been delayed.

The reduced duty rate was recalculated based on fuel duty changes and the energy content. The clause legislates for the reduced rate of excise duty for aqua methanol, which will incentivise the uptake of that alternative fuel and help us to deliver on the commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality in our towns and cities.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 141 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 17 agreed to.

Clause 142

Tobacco products duty: rates

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

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The Committee will be pleased to hear that I have just a few sentences to say about this clause. For the benefit of the Committee, the clause simply deals with increases in the rates of tobacco duty. I will not go into detail because I am sure the Minister will cover the specifics, but I want to illustrate some of the issues I noticed in the HMRC policy paper. The policy paper refers only to the 5% increase for hand-rolling tobacco and states that this measure alone is expected to raise £10 million each year to 2020-21. Will the Minister provide us with the expected Exchequer impact for all the measures in the clause, either now or later in writing?

Alistair Darling announced in the last Labour Government’s final Budget that tobacco duty would rise by 1% above inflation in 2010 and by 2% above inflation for the following four years thereafter. The Opposition therefore support the introduction of the escalator in the Finance Act 2014 and we will certainly support this clause today.

[Damian Hinds]

Clause 142 makes changes to ensure that the tobacco duty regime continues to work as part of the Government’s wider health agenda to reduce smoking prevalence. The clause implements tobacco duty increases of 2% above the RPI rate of inflation for all products and an additional 3% increase for hand-rolling tobacco, meaning a 5% increase in total for hand-rolling tobacco. The Government are committed to reducing smoking rates, especially among young people. Smoking is the single largest cause of preventable illness and premature death in this country. It accounts for around 100,000 deaths a year and kills around half of all long-term users. Reducing the affordability of tobacco products through taxation is widely acknowledged to be effective in reducing smoking prevalence.

The changes that have already come into effect have added 21p to a packet of 20 cigarettes and 44p to a 30g pouch of hand-rolling tobacco. Research shows that, as well as establishing high tobacco duty rates, maintaining those high rates is also important in reducing smoking prevalence. That is why, as was announced in the 2014 Budget, annual duty increases of 2% above inflation will continue until the end of the Parliament. I should clarify for the hon. Lady that that means they are already in the projections for the public finances and that the overall impact of the two changes is as published in the Budget scorecard. The clause implements the tobacco duty rate increase of 2% above inflation and an additional 3% for hand-rolling tobacco, which supports our wider health agenda.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 142 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 143

Alcoholic liquor duties: rates

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

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The clause increases the rates of alcohol duty on wine and some ciders and perries in line with inflation. The changes took effect on 21 March. In discussing the clause, I want to touch on one type of alcohol duty that is notably not being increased in line with inflation.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Having considered alcoholic liquor duties, we now stagger towards clause 155, with which we will consider the following:

That schedule 23 be the Twenty-third schedule to the Bill.

Clauses 156 and 157 stand part.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The clauses and schedule relate to tax assessment—that exciting subject—and tax returns. Clause 155 grants HMRC the power to make an assessment of someone’s income and capital gains tax liabilities without their having to fill in a self-assessment form, from the 2016-17 financial year onwards. I understand that the provision will apply only to individuals on whom HMRC already has enough information to provide an assessment, so the number of individuals affected will be relatively small, but it will reduce the burden of self-assessment for them.

Providing a commentary on the clause, the Chartered Institute of Taxation said:

“We raised quite a lot of minor points in our submission about the wording of the draft legislation and the legislation that is in the Finance Bill 2016 has been made clearer on a number of these points.

Also, the length of time that the taxpayer has to query the simple assessment has been increased from 30 to 60 days which is a welcome extension.”

It goes on to say:

“HMRC need to ensure that it is made clear to taxpayers that it is their responsibility to check the simple assessment (this means checking that all their taxable income is accounted for and all expenses and allowances to which they are entitled are being correctly claimed) and that they have the right to query the assessment if they disagree with it.”

I am pleased that the Government have improved the legislation, but will the Minister tell me what measures are in place to ensure that taxpayers know that it is their responsibility to check the simple assessment, and that they know they have the right to query it?

The Chartered Institute of Taxation also highlighted the fact that the new power to issue a simple assessment comes into effect in the current tax year, but that until now there has been little publicity or guidance from HMRC about how it intends to use the power. Can the Government confirm whether HMRC will start using the power this year, and in what circumstances?

Clause 156, as set out in the explanatory notes, clarifies the amount of time allowed for making a self-assessment when HMRC has served a notice to file a return. The clause relates to an earlier legal case, R (oao of Higgs) v. HMRC [2015] UKUT, in which HMRC argued that a tax rebate did not have to be paid since the claim was lodged after the four-year time limit for tax returns to be completed had expired. The court found against HMRC on the grounds that the time limit does not apply to self-assessment returns, so the clause clarifies the existing legislation and negates the earlier legal decision. The Chartered Institute of Taxation has said that that seems like a sensible provision in light of that case, and we support the measure.

Finally, clause 157 enacts a minor change, allowing HMRC to withdraw a notice to file a self-assessment return where it is clear that an individual no longer has the need to. Again, we support that measure, and we will not oppose any of these clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 159 and 160 stand part.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

These clauses relate broadly to judgment debts, and they make the same provisions for Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales. The Chartered Institute of Taxation has had no representations or comments from its members on the three clauses, apparently because they are completely uncontroversial. The legislation, however, seems complex, so I wondered whether the Minister has had any representations at all about its drafting. Otherwise, we have no issues with the clauses.

[Mr Gauke]

The clauses, as we have heard, deal with the rates of interest for all tax-related debts involving HMRC, ensuring that they are at the appropriate level, in accordance with tax legislation.

By way of background, section 52 of the Finance Act 2015 provided a set rate of judgment debt interest for England and Wales. Where HMRC is involved with a tax-related debt, the requirement is for the rates of interest to be those in tax legislation, and not those set out in a judgment debt or by a county court or others. Last summer, in the Finance Bill, we set out the rates of interest for England and Wales, but interest payable by or to HMRC following a court action in Scotland and Northern Ireland is set at a different rate. That is because we sought to consult with Scotland and Northern Ireland before extending the changes to them. They have since indicated that they are content for the legislation to be extended UK-wide.

To answer the hon. Lady’s question, we have not received any representations on the measure. It may be complex, but it appears to be uncontroversial, so I hope it can stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 158 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 159 and 160 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 161

Gift aid: power to impose penalties on charities and intermediaries

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

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The clause relates to gift aid and will allow HMRC to impose penalties on intermediaries that fail to comply with new requirements on gift aid declarations, as set out in secondary legislation that has not yet been published. A technical consultation on those draft regulations is apparently being carried out later this year. To understand the clause, therefore, the Committee might find some background useful.

The Government want to make it easier to claim gift aid on donations given through digital channels. At the moment, a charity requires a gift aid declaration from a donor in order to be able to claim gift aid. Where donations are made by an intermediary—through a website such as justgiving.com, or by text—the situation is difficult, because the intermediary has to collect the declaration from the donor and then pass it on to the charity.

The Government therefore carried out a consultation on digital giving, which ran from July to September 2013, and published their response in April 2014. The consultation received more than 100 responses, and I understand that meetings have been held with representatives of both charities and intermediaries. The Government’s intention, as I understand it, is to allow gift aid declarations to be made by intermediaries representing individuals, and to allow charities to use such declarations to claim gift aid. The primary legislation that gave the Government the power to do that was enacted in the Finance Act 2014. Clause 161 simply amends that legislation so that the regulations, when published, may also include a penalty for intermediaries who fail to comply with the requirement, as well as a right of appeal against those penalties. Regulations for the requirements and penalties will be published later this year.

According to the policy paper, the Exchequer impact of the changes are not known, but the measure is expected to decrease net receipts, as there will be a higher level of gift aid on donations. The paper also states that the measure will affect only intermediaries who fail to comply with legislation, and that they may incur one-off costs to put systems in place to implement the changes. However, estimates of the impact will be made when details of the measure have been finalised.

We completely agree with making it easier for gift aid to be claimed on donations where it is complicated to do so, and we are happy to support the clause, but perhaps the Minister will provide more detail of what the regulations will contain and what the requirements on intermediaries will be.

[Damian Hinds]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for this opportunity to put on the record a little more of the detail and some of the reasoning behind the measure. Clause 161 gives HMRC the power to impose penalties on intermediaries operating in the charity sector if they fail to comply with new requirements to be set out in regulations. These regulations are designed to make it easier for charities to claim gift aid through digital channels, and draft regulations have been made available to the Committee.

Clause 161 lays the groundwork for delivering the Government’s commitment to giving intermediaries working in the charity sector a greater role in administering gift aid, which allows charitable donations to be made tax-free. Donors can now give through multiple digital channels, including SMS text donations, online portals and, more recently, Twitter. Gift aid legislation has not always kept up with these developments, so in autumn statement 2013, the Government announced plans to explore ways in which charity intermediaries could be given a greater role in administering gift aid. We have worked closely with representatives of charities and intermediaries to develop proposals to give additional flexibility in claiming gift aid through digital channels. The clause is a necessary step in delivering those proposals. It gives HMRC the ability to charge penalties to intermediaries that do not operate within the new rules. This will help to ensure that the additional flexibility for claiming gift aid is not misused, and so help to protect the income and reputation of charities throughout the country.

It may be helpful if I briefly set out how the new proposals will work. Before a charity can claim gift aid on a donation it has received, the donor must have completed a declaration stating both that the donation is eligible for gift aid and that they want the charity to be able to reclaim the tax paid on that donation. Essentially, this allows the donor to give an intermediary permission to complete a gift aid declaration on his or her behalf in respect of donations made through that intermediary. That permission will last for the rest of the tax year, negating the need to complete a gift aid declaration every time a donation is made. Donors will, of course, have the right to cancel that permission at any time. As with any tax relief, the Government must ensure that the gift aid is claimed only when it is right to do so, and clearly rules must be in place to ensure that.

These rules are in everyone’s best interests. They protect the use of taxpayers’ money and the reputation of those charities that benefit from gift aid relief, and encourage intermediaries to act responsibly. For example, it is only right that intermediaries should let donors know the total value of gift aid claimed on their donations over the course of a tax year, as this could affect their tax liability. Consequently, there will be new obligations on intermediaries who choose to offer the new process set out in regulations. Failure to comply with those obligations could result in intermediaries facing a penalty.

If a penalty is imposed, it will be £50 per failure to comply, up to a limit of £3,000 a year. I should stress that although there must be a sanction against those who are careless or negligent, it is not anticipated that HMRC will charge these penalties routinely. There will be scope to suspend them to enable intermediaries to rectify any shortcomings in processes, and of course there will be a right of appeal against a decision to impose a penalty. I want to make it clear that the Government do not propose applying new penalties on charities; they will apply only to intermediaries.

Clause 161 amends the Income Tax Act 2007 to set out when a penalty may be imposed, and the maximum amount that can be imposed for failure to comply, and it confers appeal rights. It also provides that the clause will take effect from a date appointed in regulations. The Government recognise that intermediaries can and indeed do play an important role in assisting charities to get the benefit of gift aid. It is necessary to ensure that the processes under which they operate are robust and not misused to the detriment of charities or their generous donors.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 161 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 162

Proceedings under customs and excise Acts: prosecuting authority

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

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

Clause 162 amends part XI of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 to remove reference to the commissioners from the definition of “prosecuting authority” for Scotland and Northern Ireland. It will also insert the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland as the relevant prosecuting authority for Northern Ireland.

We see the clause as a minor amending clause that tidies up the measures in the 1979 Act relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland. We believe that it is sensible to ensure that the time limit for summary offences does not start to run before the date at which the prosecuting authority has knowledge of sufficient evidence to warrant the proceedings.

We have no concerns about the clause and are happy to support it, but I will stray slightly from the exact detail of the clause and ask the Minister what initial consideration the Treasury has given to the future of customs checks on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland following the EU referendum. I am sure that he is aware that the Irish border has been free of customs checks since 1993 as a result of the single market. A return to customs checks would be damaging to the British and Irish economy, and may well have implications for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Minister can address that concern, either today or in writing at a later date.

[Damian Hinds]

As the hon. Lady and all members of the Committee know, a number of issues will have to be addressed in due course. The clause does not relate to the subject of the question she asked.

Clause 162 amends the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 to correct outdated references to the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland and Scotland. By doing so, it will ensure that time limits for starting proceedings will apply only to the correct authorities. The clause is purely technical and is not a change of policy.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 162 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 163

Detention and seizure under CEMA 1979: notice requirements etc

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

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

Again, I have just got a few comments, because the clause is largely uncontroversial. It simply amends the 1979 Act to permit Border Force officers to treat the driver of a vehicle or someone comparable as if they were representatives of the goods being seized. It seems uncontroversial, but it has implications for vehicle drivers, including road haulage drivers. I am not aware of any concerns expressed by potential stakeholders, but what consultation has taken place with the Road Haulage Association in particular, the British International Freight Association and the office of the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration?

[Damian Hinds]

Clause 163 makes provision for an officer of HMRC to treat a person, when seizing or detaining goods, as if they are a representative of the owner of the goods, wherever that person has or appears to have possession or control over those goods.

Under current legislation, when detaining or seizing goods, there is no requirement for an officer to serve a notice of detention or notice of seizure on the person present if the officer believes that that person is a servant or agent of the owner of those goods. Whether a driver can be considered an agent or servant of the owner affects the processes that the officers seizing or detaining goods must follow. However, drivers of vehicles carrying such goods often claim distance from the owner, making it difficult for HMRC successfully to consider them to be an agent or servant of the owner. That leaves HMRC trying to find an owner in what is usually a complex, fraudulent supply chain.

The changes made by clause 163 will allow officers to treat the driver, or a person in a comparable position, as if he or she were a representative of the owner and, therefore, not legally entitled to a notice of detention or a notice of seizure. It will make the operational duties of officers of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs more effective. Currently, those who purport to be owners are arguing that they have not had their legal right to appeal because they were not served with a notice.

HMRC has a duty to take robust action to deal with those who smuggle illicit goods of any description into the UK. By making explicit provision for the driver to be treated the same as an agent or servant, it will reduce the resource required in trying to identify the owner of the goods in what is usually a fraudulent and potentially complex supply chain.

The measure was consulted on in December 2015 for eight weeks. One response was received, and an individual reply was sent. The main thrust of the response was a request for clarification on the rights of appeal, and on whether the legislation would affect the rights of the owner to appeal against the seizure. HMRC was able to explain that the legislation would not affect those rights; appeal rights were not compromised. It was a consolidated response from industry, including hauliers.

To conclude, the measure removes the need for an officer to serve a notice on someone who has, or appears to have, possession or control of anything that is detained or seized. By doing that, the measure clarifies procedure for officers and those from whom the goods are detained or seized. It also removes significant operational barriers for HMRC in its pursuit of reduced excise tax gaps.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 163 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 164

Data-gathering powers: providers of payment or intermediary services

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 165 stand part.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

Clause 164 looks at extending HMRC’s data-gathering powers for the growing digital economy, which we are happy to support. HMRC’s existing data-gathering powers were set out in schedule 23 to the Finance Act 2011. HMRC subsequently obtained new powers in section 228 of the Finance Act 2013 to request data from merchant acquirers—businesses—that process credit and debit card transactions.

More recently, HMRC completed a consultation, “Tackling the hidden economy: extension of data-gathering powers”, between July and October 2015, which has led to the detail of this clause. The clause recognises the rapid development of the digital economy and payments made through it, and the Government wish to enhance their ability to obtain data by adding two new categories of data holders to the existing legislation on data gathering.

Those categories are identified as electronic stored-value payment services—or digital wallets—and as other business intermediaries operating offline. The Financial Times recently reported research by Worldpay that asserted that the rise of digital wallets would mean that credit cards and debit cards would fall from accounting for two thirds of all payments to just half by 2019.

The same report found that $647 billion of consumer payments to businesses will be made globally through digital or e-wallets that year. It is in that context that the Government wish to cast their data-gathering net wider to include that growing sector. I am particularly interested in the Minister’s view of the possibility of increasing tax revenue through these powers. The economic impact in the policy paper suggests an increased take of approximately £200 million per year once these powers are embedded.

Roy Maugham, tax partner at UHY Hacker Young, said:

“The new powers HMRC are seeking indicate that they believe there is large-scale tax evasion in the ‘app economy’.”

Is the expectation that these powers will reveal new instances of tax evasion or tax avoidance? Will the Minister indicate what initial scoping or research has been possible to determine the likelihood of that? In the light of the consultation response from the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, will the Minister guarantee that the powers will not be used in a way that disadvantages those on low incomes who run owner-managed businesses and who will find them a significant new administrative burden?

A number of submissions to the consultation and responses to the draft legislation, including from the Chartered Institute of Taxation and Payments UK, expressed concern about the definition of the two new categories. I believe that the comments from Payments UK on the definition of “providers of digital wallets” have largely been taken on board, with them now being referred to as

“providers of electronic stored-value payment services”.

The Chartered Institute of Taxation would like further clarification on the definition of “business intermediaries” as it is concerned that that will catch not only websites such as eBay, Etsy and Airbnb but traditional businesses such as insurance brokers and letting agents. Can the Minister shine some light on that today?

We are also happy to support clause 165, which addresses HMRC’s power to levy daily penalties on data holders that do not comply with a data information notice request. Under existing legislation, if a person fails to comply with a data holder notice, they are liable for an initial fixed penalty of £300 and daily default penalties of up to £60 a day. If that is unsuccessful, a tribunal can decide the amount of an increased daily default penalty, which cannot be more than £1,000 a day. The clause clarifies that the tribunal will be responsible for determining the maximum amount of an increased daily penalty, but HMRC will determine the penalty that applies.

Our main concern, once again raised by the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, is that the proposed change to the law in clause 165 might move significant numbers into the scope of data holder notices and a penalty regime intended for large companies involved in established modes of transaction, such as companies that facilitate credit card transactions. Under the current data request regime, the requirement for the parties subject to a notice to produce the information demanded within 30 days, under threat of instant penalties, may be particularly demanding for lower-resourced parties. On that basis, I hope the Minister can give such companies some reassurance.

Aside from the points that I have outlined, we are more than happy to support clauses 164 and 165.

[Mr Gauke]

Clause 164 will extend HMRC’s existing bulk data-gathering powers, allowing it to require data from two additional categories of data holder. The first category relates to business intermediaries that facilitate transactions, particularly online, between a supplier and a customer. The category covers providers of electronic stored-value payment services, also known as digital wallet transactions, a method of transferring payments to a retailer or trader. Comparing those new data with information that it already holds will enable HMRC to identify businesses that have failed to register with it or that are not declaring the full amount of tax they owe. HMRC will not seek data about individual transactions.

Clause 165 makes minor technical corrections to schedule 23 to the Finance Act 2011, which covers the bulk data-gathering powers mentioned in clause 164. Businesses are increasingly using intermediaries to provide custom or take payments, in some cases without registering for tax. New payment models are evolving quickly and are moving away from cash and card transactions towards other electronic payment groups, which means that some businesses can trade digitally while remaining beyond HMRC’s view.

Clause 164 updates HMRC’s data-gathering powers to keep pace with those changes and futureproofs legislation by including emerging new data sources of a similar type. Those data will help HMRC to crack down on the hidden economy, which the Government are committed to addressing. The powers that enable HMRC to collect third-party data from a range of data holders is subject to appeal. When a data holder does not comply with a notice, HMRC may levy penalties.

Clause 165 corrects provision by which increased daily penalties can be approved and assessed. As drafted, the existing provisions are not sufficiently clear and may lead to confusion for data holders and obstacles to the administration of the penalties. Clause 165 gives clarity to the legislation regarding HMRC’s application to the first-tier tribunal and adds an appeal right for the data holder over the number of days the increased penalties can be assessed.

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

Clause 167 introduces a raw tobacco approval scheme for users of and dealers in raw tobacco. Raw tobacco is not subject to excise duty or possession controls when it is not yet in a smokable form. The Government state that tobacco duty evasion is becoming increasingly prevalent through raw tobacco, which is freely and legally imported and either processed into smoking products in unregistered premises or sold in small quantities to consumers for home processing. To try to combat that, the Government carried out a consultation on the control of raw tobacco, and proposed an approval scheme.

The clause introduces a raw tobacco approval scheme that requires a person undertaking any activity involving raw tobacco to be approved and registered with HMRC. If a person is found to be undertaking an uncontrolled activity without registering with HMRC, the penalties that can be issued are either £250 or an amount equal to the duty that would have been charged on the relevant quantity of smoking tobacco at the lowest rate of duty. On that point, will the Minister confirm why the Government set the penalty at the lowest rate of duty? They could have gone for the hand-rolling rate, which would have doubled the penalty.

The clause allows exemptions to be granted to those who have a legitimate use of raw tobacco that does not involve the manufacturing of smoking products. HMRC expects that 20 to 24 businesses—mainly tobacco product manufacturers, importers, brokers and testing centres—will register. I understand that the Government are going to undertake a post-implementation review, which we welcome.

The aim is to address tobacco duty evasion by prohibiting the use of raw tobacco by unapproved persons to prevent the illegal manufacture of tobacco products. The clause will also make it a lot easier for border forces to seize tobacco and check whether it is destined for an approved person.

I understand that the new scheme will be largely built on existing registration processes, minimising the administrative impact on legitimate users of raw tobacco. For example, tobacco manufacturers already have duty approval, which will just be extended to include raw tobacco approval. Does the Minister feel that that addresses the Tobacco Manufacturers Association’s concerns that the measure will place additional burdens on legitimate users of raw tobacco?

The Labour party welcomes any measures to crack down on tax evasion and avoidance. We will therefore support the clause.

[Damian Hinds]

Clause 167 makes changes prohibiting any unapproved person from carrying out any activity involving raw tobacco. That will reduce the risk of evasion of tobacco excise duty and prevent the illegal manufacture of tobacco products. The approval scheme will be set out in regulations made under powers in this clause, and tailored to reflect a proportionate response to the risk presented. It will build on existing approval processes where appropriate to minimise the impact on legitimate users of raw tobacco.

Raw tobacco that is not yet in a smokable form is not subject to excise duty and the associated movement controls in the UK. There is a significant risk of tobacco products duty evasion through raw tobacco being freely and legally imported. It can be processed into illicit tobacco products in unregistered premises or sold in small quantities to consumers for home processing. We have identified no legitimate use for significant quantities of raw tobacco in the UK, other than for the manufacture of smoking products.

The Government are aware that raw tobacco is occasionally used in very small quantities for non-smoking purposes, such as beekeeping, pigeon bedding and fertiliser production. We have identified no significant non-smoking uses for large volumes of raw tobacco in the United Kingdom. Dialogue has been sought with the representatives of the potential niche uses, and the scheme has been designed with an understanding of those alternative uses and the extent of the risk presented.

The illicit manufacture of cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco in the UK from raw tobacco deprives the Exchequer of the duty that should be paid, upon which we rely to fund our public services. It also makes cheaper illicit tobacco products more accessible, undermining the Government’s public health objectives.

The clause will assist in preventing the evasion of excise duty through the use of raw tobacco. It amends the Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979, prohibiting any person from carrying out any activity involving raw tobacco unless the person holds approval from HMRC. The changes will give HMRC powers to set out the details of the approval scheme in regulations, including how to apply for approval and what conditions and restrictions might apply to an approval. The clause will enable HMRC and Border Force officers to identify and seize raw tobacco if there is no evidence to show that the raw tobacco is destined for either an approved person or a premises that is specified in an approval. It also provides appropriate sanctions, including penalties and forfeiture, where any unapproved person has any involvement with raw tobacco.

From the consultation responses, it is expected that between 20 and 40 businesses will apply for approval. The one-off costs of familiarisation with the scheme and of making the application will be negligible. The raw tobacco scheme will protect £10 million of revenue per year by 2017-18, as certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility. The tobacco rate that applies to other smoking tobacco can be charged only until a tobacco product is produced, and if that happens, the correct tobacco rate will of course apply from that point. The clause will reduce the risk of evasion of excise duty by prohibiting activities involving raw tobacco by an unapproved person, to prevent the illegal manufacture of tobacco products.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 167 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 168

Powers to obtain information about certain tax advantages

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

That schedule 24 be the Twenty-fourth schedule to the Bill.

Clauses 169 and 170 stand part.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

These clauses give HMRC the power to collect and publish data relating to claimants of certain tax reliefs listed in schedule 24; I will not detail them all. The aim is essentially to make it easier for the European Commission to assess whether any such reliefs constitute state aid, in accordance with relevant EU obligations that commence on 1 July 2016. Information will be published only for beneficiaries who are in receipt of aid above €500,000, and the specific amount of tax advantage will not be published.

State aid is defined by the European Commission as

“an advantage in any form whatsoever conferred on a selective basis to undertakings by national public authorities.”

We do not have any issue with the principle behind the clauses—despite the obvious question of whether they will all need to be repealed in a few years’ time—but I have a question about clause 170(3) to (5), which allows the Treasury to amend the list of reliefs in schedule 24 by statutory instrument made under the negative procedure, meaning that it will not be debated. That raises the issue of scrutiny. Under what circumstances will the list be updated? I hope the Minister can provide some clarity on that. However, overall there does not appear to have been much reaction to the measures in these clauses, and we will not oppose them today.

[Mr Gauke]

Clauses 168 to 170 and schedule 24 introduce new powers to allow HMRC to collect information on certain tax reliefs and exemptions. They will allow HMRC to improve its ability to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness and value of those reliefs, which constitute state aid. The powers will also allow some of that information to be shared with the European Commission through a legal gateway and published on a public website.

Improved the monitoring and evaluation of state aid provided to UK businesses via tax reliefs and advantages is a sensible step forward. It may help if I provide hon. Members with some background. State aid is an advantage granted to an undertaking by public authorities through state resources on a selective basis. The Government support improved monitoring and evaluation of aid, to ensure that tax reliefs or advantages are well targeted and of value to the UK.

The provisions will allow HMRC to determine what information should be included in any claim for tax relief, to collect information from relevant persons in receipt of state aid and to publish and disclose relevant information about state aid received by beneficiaries. The changes will only affect UK businesses in receipt of state aid in the form of certain tax reliefs, and we will engage with those affected to ensure that they are ready.

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

This clause provides a power, first, to define by regulations a qualifying transformer company, and secondly, to determine by regulations the tax treatments of QTCs, investors in QTCs and transactions involving QTCs. The Committee will be aware from my comments earlier in the week that transformer vehicles are used by insurance companies to transform receivables, such as the repayments for a bundle of mortgages from a group of mortgage borrowers, into a security. It is right to express extreme caution about that procedure, given that it was the process of securitisation in the US sub-prime mortgage market that led to the financial crisis in 2007-08.

The provision appears to be broadly unobjectionable, but it provides a power for the Treasury to create regulations. If memory serves me correctly, the issue was discussed recently during the passage of the Bank of England and Financial Services Act 2016. Securitisation structures operate by transferring assets, whether sub-prime mortgages, credit card receivables or similar cash flows, into off-balance-sheet special purpose vehicles. Ordinarily, the profits or cash flows received from those assets pass through the special purpose vehicle to the investors who have acquired bonds in it. Usually, the residual amounts—the focus of clause 61, which I spoke about at length earlier in the week—that are left in the special purpose vehicle are small amounts compared with the sums that are paid to the investors.

However, as with all such artificial financial structures, it is possible to manipulate those amounts. If the residual amounts held by special purpose vehicles are to be saved from withholding tax, as clause 61 provides, and treated in a different manner for tax purposes, that makes it possible for the payment flows through a special purpose vehicle to be artificially raised so that larger sums can benefit from that different tax treatment.

What concerns me is as follows. What is stopping an unscrupulous financial institution involved in the industry of off-the-peg tax avoiding derivatives from passing large sums that would otherwise be subject to withholding tax—for example as payments of interest—through special purpose vehicles? Have the Government considered in detail how such cash flows should be treated so as to prevent artificial or abusive tax avoidance? Are the Government satisfied that they have done enough work to identify contexts in which transformer vehicles might be used for tax avoidance purposes? For example, subsection (4)(c) acknowledges that the regulations must consider attempts to obtain a tax advantage using transformer vehicles.

I understand that from 1 March to 29 April, the Treasury ran a consultation on insurance-linked securities, to which there is not yet a Government response. The website still says:

“We are analysing your feedback”.

Will the Minister say why a response to the consultation was not published before this clause came before the Committee?

[Mr Gauke]

To address directly the points raised by the hon. Lady, the regime does not present significant avoidance opportunities. The tax approach will be contingent on regulatory rules being met, which will ensure that the tax rules are appropriately targeted. In addition, the clause allows for a tailored avoidance rule, specific to the regime. That will be in addition to other anti-avoidance rules that are in place, such as the general anti-abuse rule.

The hon. Lady raised the familiar issue of securitisation and the risks involved. It is worth pointing out that insurance-linked securities deals are not the kind of financial asset securitisations that were a contributory factor in the financial crisis. ILS deals are essentially specialist reinsurance deals that are fully funded to meet the risks that they take on. That full funding requirement will be a crucial safeguard in the new UK framework. Insurance-linked securities were an asset class that performed very well during the financial crisis, and they continue to do so. I hope that that provides some reassurance to her.

I should say a word about the consultation on this matter. A formal consultation was launched in March 2016. The Government consulted the London Market Group’s ILS taskforce and a range of market participants on the development of a framework that will allow vehicles that issue ILS deals to locate in the UK. Respondents were supportive of the general approach outlined in the consultation, and the comments received will inform the drafting of secondary legislation made under this power. As for why those comments are unpublished, detailed rules will be included within regulations, which will be subject to further consultation over the summer, in addition to ongoing discussion with the industry taskforce.

I hope that those points are helpful to the Committee and that the clause will stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 171 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 172

Office of Tax Simplification

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

We will not press our amendments to a vote, but I want the Minister to understand our rationale for tabling them. As he has already explained, these clauses and schedule 25 make provisions for the OTS’s governance, operation and functions. We support the measures, as we believe that the OTS made some valuable contributions during the previous Parliament to informing debate about taxation and challenging the Government, but we believe strongly that it should be clearly independent. As such, we have tabled amendments to try to beef up the Bill in that regard.

Amendment 140 would amend schedule 25 to specify that the chair of the OTS should be appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the Treasury Committee’s consent, as is the case with the Office for Budget Responsibility. We think that that is a sensible approach to ensure the impartiality of the OTS. I am sure that the Minister is aware that Labour has placed on record its concerns about the OTS being used for political purposes. We therefore think that the consent of the Treasury Committee to the appointment of the OTS’s chair would be beneficial, and it would be helpful to hear the Minister’s thoughts about that idea in principle.

Amendment 141 would ensure that the Chancellor was not able to refuse to provide funding for OTS inquiries that he did not deem to be within its remit, as I understand could be the case as the Bill currently stands. The amendment would make it harder for the Chancellor to refuse to fund inquiries.

Amendment 142 would insert tax reliefs specifically into the OTS’s functions, allowing it to review the best way to simplify the ever-growing number of tax breaks and reliefs. The Opposition are concerned that there does not seem to be an effective process to review the efficacy of those tax breaks and reliefs in achieving their desired aims, and it would therefore be sensible to insert tax reliefs directly into the functions of the OTS.

Amendments 137 and 138 relate to the reports and reviews that the OTS will produce. Amendment 137 would clarify that the OTS could produce reports as it considered appropriate, not just at the request of the Chancellor, and amendment 138 would allow the OTS directly to lay reports before Parliament. As the Bill currently stands, the OTS will report to the Chancellor, who can then lay those reports before Parliament. The amendments would give the OTS greater independence and accountability to Parliament, not just to the Chancellor.

We will not press the amendments to a vote, but I hope that the Minister will take time to consider and address the Opposition’s concerns about the Bill as drafted and that the Government will be willing to move on those issues in due course.

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s remarks in support of the OTS. I addressed many of her points in my earlier remarks, but let me briefly come back to the point about independence. The role of the OTS is fundamentally different from that of the OBR. The OBR is a scrutinising body. Rather than the OTS having an Executive function, its role is to provide advice to the Chancellor on simplification of the tax system. Ministers then make the final decisions on tax policy and are held accountable for those decisions.

The hon. Lady expressed concern that the OTS’s independence is at risk because the Chancellor could withhold funding because the Treasury do not like what the OTS is doing. I do not think that is a real risk. It is worth making the point that the OTS budget has been expanded, providing it with the funding that it needs. It is also worth highlighting the OTS’s expanded role in providing advice on the simplification of the tax system as it considers appropriate, as opposed to where it has been given a specific remit.

I touched on many of those points in my earlier remarks, but I wanted to take this opportunity to reiterate them. I am pleased that there is cross-party support for the existence and role of the OTS and welcome that this afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 172 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 25 agreed to.

Clauses 173 to 179 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

New clauses 11 to 17 will introduce the legislation announced in the 2016 Budget for a specific charge to income tax or corporation tax on profits from the disposal of land in the UK. The new clauses will ensure that offshore structures cannot be used to avoid UK tax on profits generated from dealing in or developing land in the UK.

New clauses 11, 12 and 15 will introduce new rules to ensure that profits generated by a company from dealing in or developing land in the UK will be chargeable to UK corporation tax. Those rules will apply regardless of the residence of the person carrying on the trade and regardless of whether the developer has a permanent establishment in the UK.

New clauses 13 and 14 will ensure that the profits generated by an individual from dealing in or developing land will always be chargeable to UK income tax. To prevent avoidance, the new charge will also apply where, instead of dealing in land, a developer sells shares in a company that carries on such developments. It will also apply where arrangements are put in place to split profits from development activity between the developer and related entities that could otherwise reduce chargeable allowance. In addition, the Government have strengthened long-standing rules on transactions in land to ensure that they can effectively counter abuse of the new rules.

To support those new rules, the Government are introducing an anti-avoidance rule to prevent manipulation between the policy announcement on Budget day 2016 and the introduction of the new clauses. The anti-avoidance rule is in new clause 16 for corporation tax and new clause 17 for income tax, along with other commencement and transitional rules. We have taken steps to amend our double taxation treaties; I am grateful to our partners in Guernsey, the Isle of Man and Jersey for agreeing to make changes to those treaties, taking effect from Budget day 2016. These measures will raise £2.2 billion over the scorecard period and take effect from 5 July 2016; they will affect developers of UK property who choose to operate from somewhere other than the UK to reduce their tax bills. There will be no effect on companies, based in the UK or elsewhere, whose profits are already fully taxed in the UK.

The changes made by new clauses 11 to 17 will continue the Government’s fight against aggressive tax planning and profit shifting. They will bring the UK in line with other major economies and ensure fair treatment between UK and overseas developers.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

The measures appear to be closing a tax loophole. On that basis, we do not oppose them, especially as they are estimated to bring in £130 million in this financial year, rising to a peak of £640 million in 2019-20. I must say, however, that this important addition to the Bill was tabled rather late in the day, even if the outline of the measure itself was announced for consultation at the Budget. It could be argued that the Opposition and stakeholders have been given insufficient time to go through the detail of the legislation.

None the less, the Chartered Institute of Taxation has identified two areas of concern on which it would like some clarification. First, will the Minister confirm that the Government do not intend pure investment structures to be affected by the new measures? Secondly, will he confirm that new clause 16 is simply a timing rule dealing with the opposition of pre-trading expenditure that would not be deductible under normal principles and where reliance needs to be placed on section 61 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009? The concern is that the clause seeks to restrict normal trading expenses incurred prior to the company’s falling within the new charge. Some clarification from the Minister on those points would be appreciated.

[Mr Gauke]

I will of course address the questions that the hon. Lady has raised, but it might be helpful if I first provide a bit of background. Stamp duty is usually payable at 0.5% on instruments that transfer shares—no, I do not want to give that background. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

To conclude, the Government have already considered a fuel duty regulator and found that it would destabilise the public finances and could create uncertainty for businesses, which would be harmful for economic growth. I therefore hope that new clause 4 will be rejected.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I have just a brief comment. Labour Members agree that the fluctuations in the price of oil in recent years is concerning. A review of how best to stabilise pricing would be sensible. We will therefore support the SNP Members if they choose to press the matter to a vote.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

As I said, this has to be looked at in the context of the system of financial support for Members of the House of Lords in the round; we cannot look at the tax system in isolation, which is what a review under the Finance Bill would have to do. This is not the right way in which to consider the system of financial support for Members of the House of Lords. Any review of that system would need to be done in the round, and the new clause is not appropriate for the Finance Bill. I therefore urge hon. Members to oppose new clause 5, if it is pressed to a Division.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I understand that the Review Body on Senior Salaries published a review of financial support for Members of the other place in November 2009. Our position is that there needs to be a broader review of House of Lords salaries and allowances. We are happy to support the Scottish National party if the new clause is pressed to a vote; it certainly deserves consideration.

[Kirsty Blackman]

A number of my colleagues would love to speak on this issue on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 6

Oil and gas: decommissioning contracts

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall commission a review of the ways in which the tax regime could be changed to increase the competitiveness of UK-registered companies in bidding for supply chain contracts associated with the decommissioning of oil and gas infrastructure.

(2) In undertaking the review, the Chancellor shall consult the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Oil and Gas Authority; Scottish Ministers; and any other stakeholders that the Chancellor thinks appropriate.

(3) The Chancellor shall report to Parliament on the results of his review within six months of the passing of this Act.”.—(Philip Boswell.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

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