Tax Credits: Concentrix
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(7 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on Concentrix’s activities in relation to tax credit investigations made on behalf of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)
I want to be very clear: the Government recognise the importance of tax credits to individuals and families. We all recognise that it is important for this support to reach the people who really need it. That is why HMRC works hard to check that it is making the correct payments, and to tackle any fraudulent claims. We must acknowledge that error and fraud exist in the system, and should be addressed to ensure taxpayers’ money is spent correctly. As part of this work, HMRC engaged Synnex-Concentrix Ltd in 2014 to help check people’s eligibility. As a result, almost £300 million of incorrect payments have been avoided.
I want to reassure the House on two key points. First, Concentrix has been paid only for making the right decisions; it has not received payment for taking someone’s money away wrongly. Secondly, Concentrix has not been allowed to engage in fishing expeditions or to pick on vulnerable claimants at random. Where there has been evidence to suggest a claim might not be correct, Concentrix has written to claimants to seek further information and confirm their eligibility. I realise—I know this as a constituency Member myself—that it can be stressful for someone to receive such a letter, but it is right that we investigate the full picture, with contributions from claimants themselves, to ensure we make the right payments. That is why both Concentrix and HMRC, where it does the same work, always send a letter and give claimants 30 days to provide information before taking any further action. It is important that people do indeed respond, and that they get in touch if they are struggling to respond to any of the questions.
Despite the best efforts of the staff manning the phones, Concentrix, with the high volume of calls in recent weeks, has not been providing the high levels of customer service that the public expect and which are required in its contract. HMRC has therefore given notice that this contract will not be renewed beyond its end date in May 2017. HMRC is also no longer passing new cases to Concentrix, but is instead working with it as a matter of urgency to improve the service it provides to claimants and to resolve outstanding cases. I can confirm to the House that 150 HMRC staff have been redeployed with immediate effect to help it to resolve any issues people are having with their claims as quickly as possible.
I realise that colleagues on both sides of the House are concerned to get difficult cases resolved and to assist vulnerable constituents appropriately. In addition to the extra resources I have mentioned, I have arranged a drop-in for Members in Room B, 1 Parliament Street between 9.30 and 11 am tomorrow, at which HMRC officials will be available to offer guidance to colleagues, should that be helpful.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I thank the Minister for her reply. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have been contacted, as she has been, by distressed and anxious constituents—often hard-working individuals who have had their tax credits cut unfairly, in many cases pushing them into extreme hardship. Although Labour Members certainly welcome the fact that HMRC has finally taken action by announcing that the Concentrix contract will not be renewed, it is most regrettable that the Government undertook such action only when events were dramatically exposed by the media and, indeed, by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field).
It remains the case that Synnex-Concentrix will be carrying out these services for another eight months. There is therefore a risk that, without radical amendments to the contract itself, service failures will continue. Of most concern is the fact that the payment model arguably creates a conflict of interest, as has been noted by the Social Security Advisory Committee. Will the Minister therefore confirm what arrangements she will make urgently to revise the contract to preserve justice for the claimants?
As the Minister stated, I understand that HMRC will redeploy 150 staff so that claimants can get through to advisers and resolve their claims. Will she confirm how the Government will monitor that? Will the Government now commit to an official investigation into Concentrix’s conduct since it was awarded the contract in 2014, so that we can determine how this situation was allowed to arise? Finally, has she given any consideration to the real prospect of bringing this service back in-house?
Jane Ellison
I will try to answer those questions, but it is worth commenting that this Government, and indeed their predecessors, inherited a very complicated system. In the long term, the right answer is to replace tax credits, as is our intention, because we were bequeathed an unnecessarily complex system. However, we must make the system work while it is in operation, and that is now the focus of our activities.
On HMRC’s decision about the contract, I want to reassure the House that monitoring has taken place regularly throughout the contract. Indeed, HMRC has worked closely with Concentrix. It is the case that, as has been documented, performance has not been good in recent weeks. That has clearly been noted, and we are now taking action on it.
On the contract going forward, as I mentioned in my response to the urgent question, Concentrix will focus on resolving outstanding claims, not opening new ones. In other words, it will deal with those already open in an orderly and appropriate manner. HMRC is putting in additional resource. In particular, I have asked it to focus on the difficult cases—there have been some high-profile examples in recent days—to ensure that we resolve them as quickly as possible so that all our vulnerable constituents are helped and supported.
That is the key focus as we go forward. There is no need to go into inquiries and so on. We have a contract that is monitored on a regular basis. It will not be renewed when it comes to an end in May next year. The focus for all of us in the coming days and weeks—and for me and for HMRC in particular—is on making sure that the outstanding cases are resolved, especially those of the most vulnerable, and that people have the money to which they are correctly entitled.
Value Added Tax (Place of Supply of Services: exceptions relating to supplies made to relevant business person) Order 2016 (S.I. 2016, No. 726)
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(7 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. You will be pleased to hear that I will not detain the Committee for long.
The order seeks to prevent avoidance of VAT by some insurance companies, as the Minister outlined. Such avoidance is broadly achieved by the insurance company locating outside EU VAT jurisdictions, so that any repair services can be provided to them VAT-free, as the present legislation provides that the place of supply is where the recipient is based. The provisions of the order seek to close that loophole and, as such, the Opposition support the Government in this legislation.
As the explanatory memorandum sets out, the order
“will require the service provider to charge VAT at the standard rate on the repairs they perform where the provider of the insurance cover for the goods is located outside the VAT territory of the EU”,
but where the supply of services would otherwise be treated as made in the United Kingdom and the services are effectively used and enjoyed outside the territories of the member states. The practical effect is that all UK repairs made under UK insurance contracts will be subject to VAT in the UK.
Generally speaking, the EU VAT system is designed to ensure that the tax is collected in the country where final consumption takes place. That is to ensure that UK VAT arises on consumption in the UK of goods and services. It also ensures that UK VAT is not charged in addition to other foreign VAT and taxes on consumption outside the UK. As the Minister highlighted, it appears that some insurance companies have been exploiting the system to avoid VAT on the provision of repair services specifically. Insurance companies have been setting up offshore so that such services can be supplied to them VAT-free.
The order creates an exception to the current VAT rules based on a provision in the EU principal VAT directive that permits member states to regard the place of supply as being where the services are “effectively used and enjoyed”, thereby ensuring that when the repair is undertaken in the UK, the tax is due in the UK, as the service is effectively used and enjoyed there, regardless of the involvement of offshore entities.
The Chartered Institute of Taxation broadly agrees with the principle that the Government have put forward, but it has some technical concerns about the definitions used in the order. It is specifically concerned about the lack of a clear definition or guidance on the interpretation of “use” and “enjoyment”, which could leave the legislation open to dispute, creating uncertainty for taxpayers and the authorities. As far as I am aware, the terms “use” and “enjoyment” are not defined in the EU principal VAT directive or in UK legislation. The Chartered Institute of Taxation informs me that it has raised the issue directly with HMRC and has suggested that ideally there should be a definition in the legislation and, at the very least, clear guidance on how the terms are to be interpreted.
The final HMRC guidance has not been published yet, but the Chartered Institute of Taxation has been privy to a draft, and it told me that the guidance still does not explain how the terms “use” and “enjoyment” are to be interpreted. Perhaps the Minister could use this opportunity to provide clarification as to whether the Government will define the terms “use” and “enjoyment” in legislation. We certainly would not want any lack of clarification to provide a further loophole for insurers to avoid VAT.
The order was announced in the summer 2015 Budget. According to the corresponding policy costings, I understand that it is expected to save the Exchequer £5 million a year, which is fantastic. However, although we support the order, the money is minor when compared with the Treasury’s estimates of a tax gap of around £35 billion. The latest available figures for the VAT gap was £13.5 billion for 2014-15. That is 10.8% of the estimated net VAT total theoretical liability.
The Chair
Order. I would be grateful if the hon. Lady did not deal with the wider question of VAT and the tax gap, and confined her remarks to the order that we are debating.
Rebecca Long Bailey
Thank you, Mr Gapes. I was just trying to extract a little bit more information from the Minister. You will appreciate that we rarely have opportunities to do that.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I apologise. To conclude my remarks on the order, the Opposition support the provisions introduced by the order to address VAT avoidance by insurance companies located offshore. However, I hope the Minister can address some of the points I have raised and, in particular, the concerns of the Chartered Institute of Taxation.
Finance Bill
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(7 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 174, page 167, line 40, leave out clause 82.
Government amendments 149 to 151.
Amendment 175, in schedule 14, page 481, line 36, at end insert—
‘(12) Section 169Z makes provision about the expiration of this Chapter.”
Amendment 176, page 499, line 15, at end insert—
“169VZ Expiration of Chapter 5 provisions
(1) The provisions of this Chapter shall remain in force until six years after their commencement and shall then expire, unless continued in force by an order under subsection (2).
(2) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide—
(a) that all or any of those provisions which are in force shall continue in force for a period not exceeding 12 months from the coming into operation of the order; or
(b) that all or any of those provisions which are for the time being in force shall cease to be in force.
(3) No order shall be made under subsection (2) unless—
(a) a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament,
(b) the Secretary of State has commissioned a review of the operation of Investor’s Relief and laid the report of the review before both Houses of Parliament.”
Rebecca Long Bailey
I shall speak to new clause 14 and amendments 174 to 176. Amendment 174 would remove clause 82 from the Finance Bill, thereby preventing the proposed cut to the rate of capital gains tax. The cut will reduce the basic rate of capital gains tax from 18% to 10%, and the rate on most gains made by individuals, trustees and personal representatives from 28% to 20%. Gains on residential property and carried interest will still be charged at the higher rate.
I do not want to go over old ground, but I must emphasise the Labour party’s opposition to this reduction in the rate of CGT. I thank my colleagues from other parties for joining us in our opposition. At a time when our public services are stretched to breaking point, the NHS is on its knees, our education sector is over-stretched, housing is in a state of complete crisis, people across the UK are being forced to use food banks, some mothers are going hungry because they cannot afford to feed their children and themselves, and the wider economy is in desperate need of direct investment in skills, infrastructure and industry, it seems frankly absurd to give a tax break of £2.7 billion to the richest people in our society.
Let us not forget that this CGT giveaway hails from a Budget that also planned to take away billions in welfare payments from the most vulnerable people in need of state support. The Government seemed quite happy at the time of the Budget for 300,000 disabled people to lose more than £3,000 a year in their personal independence payments. In stark contrast, our own research has found that the CGT-cutting measures of the Finance Bill amount to a tax giveaway to 200,000 people of about £3,000 a year on average. I am pleased to say that due to Labour’s opposition and the support of some Members from other parties, the worst has not yet happened in relation to PIP, but that still does not justify this policy decision in the Bill. Labour party research shows that just 0.3% of the population will benefit, with those taxpayers likely to benefit to the largest degree being in London and the south-east. If the Government do not accept our evidence, perhaps they will listen to the Resolution Foundation, which said that the CGT cut was
“focused on those on higher incomes—unsurprisingly because in general better off households are the ones making capital gains in the first place.”
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The hon. Lady makes a compelling case. One of the major challenges we face in the UK is geographical and individual wealth polarisation. Based on what she says about where the likely beneficiaries of this tax system would be, what does she think that the policy will do to tackle the great challenge of wealth polarisation that we face?
Rebecca Long Bailey
I certainly do not think that it will address the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises—quite the opposite, in fact.
The Prime Minister herself made the following commitment to the British public on the steps of Downing Street:
“The government I lead will be driven not by the interests of the privileged few, but by yours.”
Going back on this policy today would be a good place to start.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that, even after this cut, CGT rates in this country will still be higher than they were for the majority of time under the previous Labour Government?
Rebecca Long Bailey
I note the hon. Gentleman’s point and thank him for making it.
If I could see some real benefit to the wider economy or society in these proposals, or if times were good for everybody, perhaps I could understand the Government’s rationale for making such cuts to capital gains tax, but as things stand these proposals are not driven by the interests of the nation as a whole, but to be enjoyed only by the privileged few. I urge all hon. Members to vote with us to remove these cuts from the Bill because the provision simply has unfairness at its very core.
Speaking of policies for the privileged few, new clause 14 would require the Chancellor to publish a report giving the Treasury’s assessment of the value for money provided by entrepreneurs’ relief. When entrepreneurs’ relief was discussed in the Committee of the whole House earlier this year, the then Minister said:
“officials have for some time been developing a detailed research programme designed to identify taxpayers’ motivations for using entrepreneurs’ relief, and I expect the results to be published at some point in 2017.”—[Official Report, 28 June 2016; Vol. 612, c. 236.]
It would seem opportune, then, for the Financial Secretary to accept our provision tying her down to a deadline, given that the Department is already conducting some of the research needed. The Government do not have the best track record of publishing documents when they say they will, so a deadline enshrined in legislation would help. To help the Government in this endeavour, we have listed particular reference points. The report would specifically consider the cost of the relief, the number of individuals who have benefited from it, the average tax deduction received by an individual and the number of new business start-ups since the relief was introduced.
Analysis by Tax Research UK shows that 3,000 people benefited by about £600,000 each from entrepreneurs’ relief in 2013-14, at a total cost of almost £2 billion to the Treasury. Unfortunately, the most up-to-date figures for 2014-15 are not yet available, but I suspect that similar analysis will show the same results. As I said in my remarks about clause 82, this amounts to a large sum going into the hands of the very few, and it certainly seems like an inefficient use of public funds. Of course, Labour Members are in favour of supporting entrepreneurialism wherever we find it and we want businesses to grow and flourish in the UK. However, is simply offering a massive tax break years down the line when a business is sold the best way to achieve that? Should not the Government be providing support to entrepreneurs in the early stages of their business development? How on earth could an entrepreneur know if he or she wants to sell their business further down the line, when it is only starting off, so as to factor in the benefits of this tax relief? Let us see some evidence today. I hope that the Minster will commit to taking my comments on board.
The same principle goes for investors’ relief, which is the subject of amendments 175 and 176. Those amendments would introduce a sunset clause whereby the relief would expire in six years’ time. To extend it, the Government would have to introduce secondary legislation, but in order to do so a review of investors’ relief would need to be laid before the House. When we debated a similar amendment in the Committee of the whole House, which would have brought the relief to a close after five years, the then Minister stated that the first set of data would not be available until 2020-21. We have therefore helpfully amended our amendment to suit the Government’s timetable. I hope that the Financial Secretary will now commit to this sunset provision. Without wanting to repeat the remarks I made in the earlier debate, I think that requiring a review of the scheme’s efficacy would represent good practice—for all reliefs, indeed, not just this one.
Too often, tax reliefs are provided with the admirable aim of incentivising a certain type of behaviour, but there is no analysis—published analysis, I should say—of whether the policy is achieving the desired aim. That means that the limited resources that the Government keep telling us about might be diverted away from our public services, or limits could be put on our capital spending, for reliefs that might not even be working. I will not press amendments 175 and 176 to a vote, but I really hope that the Minister will address the merits of including such provisions when future tax reliefs are introduced.
I will touch briefly on Government amendments 149 to 151, which will ensure that the upper rates of capital gains tax will apply to carried interest gains. In short, carried interest gains refer to the profits paid to investment fund managers from the fund that are classified as capital gains rather than income for tax purposes. We support the amendments.
I am sure that all hon. Members are aware of the 38 Degrees campaign on the Mayfair tax loophole, which filled up our inboxes over the weekend. I will briefly reiterate the Labour party’s position. Clause 37 provides for a tapered system of income taxation on carried interest gains received in respect of investments that are held by a fund for less than three years. As the Minister explained in Committee:
“If the average holding period is less than 36 months, the payment will be subject to income tax. If the period is more than 40 months, the payment will be subject to capital gains tax.”––[Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 30 June 2016; c. 42.]
The Labour party supports that provision, but we would have liked all carried interest to be subject to income tax. We tabled an amendment in Committee that would have removed the taper completely, thereby ensuring that all carried interest was treated at 100%—in other words, taxed as if it were income. Unfortunately, the Government did not support us, but none the less we still support the steps they have taken towards closing the so-called Mayfair tax loophole.
I will press amendment 174 to a vote, because the Labour party cannot and will not agree to a measure that benefits so few by so much. We will divide the House to prevent the unfair cut to capital gains tax from going ahead.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
I know that when I mention the word “investor” in this House, some Opposition Members get a little a bit excited: their pupils dilate, their pulses quicken and their minds race with images of plutocrats rolling the dice of financial speculation. The reality, however, is a little different. I have spent my own career investing in businesses, and in this country private equity-backed businesses now account for almost 1 million people in employment. The latest research shows that in the run-up to the last crisis, those companies’ sales, investment in research and development, and, indeed, exports grew at a faster rate than the national average.
Furthermore, I am sure that everyone in the House would welcome more money for charities, more research funds for scientists, more scholarships for students who need them and lower insurance premiums, and that is indeed what the private equity industry delivers. The funds that private equity companies manage benefit all of us through university endowments, charitable foundations, pension funds and the floats of insurance companies. When the private equity industry does well, the pensioner, the scientific researcher and the scholar from a disadvantaged background all benefit.
This is a Finance Bill from a Government who value their investors and will not demonise an industry, and who know that no contribution, however great, should be allowed to skew the scales of social justice. The clauses that involve changes to carried interest will ensure that the rewards that investment managers receive for their efforts are taxed not only correctly, but fairly. The clauses will introduce a 40-month holding period to ensure that capital gains tax treatment is reserved for genuinely long-term investments, as it should be. I know that Members on both sides of the House support the welcome change to remove the base cost shift loophole, which allowed costs to be advantageously offset against gains. The Bill will also consolidate Government action on disguised fee income that was introduced in the last Finance Bill and ensure that fund managers are paying income tax when appropriate. All in all, the measures will raise in the order of £200 million in the next financial year.
Those new arrangements are not only fair for British taxpayers and society; they will also ensure that we remain competitive internationally. Our general treatment of carried interest, which has been the subject of much debate in this House and various Committees, is actually in line with the treatment carried out in the United States, Germany, Australia and France. All those countries agree with the notion that carried interest is capital in nature and should be treated as such. If we look across Europe, we will see that our rate for carried interest will sit in the middle of those for comparable countries: it will be a little bit above that in Switzerland and Germany, and a little bit below that in France.
The clauses reflecting changes to capital gains tax will ensure that the UK remains a pro-enterprise, pro-growth nation. Small and medium-sized businesses of the kinds that I used to invest in account for more than half of private sector employment in the UK. They are responsible for three quarters of all jobs created since 2008, yet I know from first hand that small and medium-sized British enterprises still struggle to attract enough equity capital to grow. Adjusted for GDP, the size of the UK’s venture capital market is a seventh of that of the United States. Just 3% of British companies manage to expand from three employees up to 10, which is half the rate in America.
When I hear about changes to capital gains tax rates, I think about how they will benefit all those small businesses, helping them get the capital they need to grow and to increase investment and employment. Indeed, investors’ relief and the other changes to capital gains tax included in the Bill will build on the success of the seed enterprise investment scheme, the enterprise investment scheme, the funding for lending scheme and the British Business Bank, all of which are providing British companies with the capital that is necessary for growth.
The changes will ensure that Britain remains a competitive prospect for investment without compromising Government revenue. The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) mentioned the state of our finances and the need for revenue. I am sure that she welcomes the fact that the Office for Budget Responsibility projects that capital gains receipts will top £7 billion this year and increase to £9 billion next year, which is higher than in any other year in the past decade and a half. Rather than being a sweet deal for the rich, our capital gains tax rate actually sits in the middle of the OECD league tables of capital gains tax rates. Ten countries have rates of 0%, and our rate of 20% will sit two points above the average.
As we contemplate leaving the European Union, it will be vital that Britain’s economy remains dynamic, open and competitive to attract the investment we need and maximise the opportunities afforded to us. The clauses relating to capital gains tax and carried interest will ensure that the UK does exactly that, and I will support them later today.
Jane Ellison
That point has been made repeatedly. Contributions from those critical of the policy often miss the way in which measures interact. We are trying to create a climate that encourages investment. A number of international studies have indicated that low rates of CGT support equity investment in firms and promote higher-quality investment in start-ups. That is an important source of innovation and growth. The evidence is there. The measures are part of a package that is trying to create a climate that makes our country attractive to invest in and enables domestic investors to invest in company growth. At the same time, as we have stressed and as other measures in the Bill stress, taxes must be fair and must be paid; the hon. Gentleman took part in a good debate last night about some of those measures.
A number of external bodies have expressed support for clause 82—that also goes to the hon. Gentleman’s point. The CBI and the Institute of Economic Affairs have both welcomed the cuts as a means of encouraging entrepreneurship and growth, and, as I have said, there is a body of evidence, not least internationally, to indicate that lower rates support equity investment in firms and promote higher-quality investment in start-ups. Again, I welcome the support of and international perspective given by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) on this subject.
The changes made by clause 82 are about encouraging investment where we want businesses to expand. As I have said, they are very much a part of a general pro-business agenda, but we have also been clear that we want fair and competitive taxes and that taxes must be paid. We addressed that in a good debate last night, when there was a good degree of cross-party consensus.
The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) mentioned the geographical distribution of the CGT cut. HMRC publishes national statistics on CGT each year that include a breakdown of its payers by geographical distribution, so there is transparency on that. It is also worth saying that it has been estimated that up to 130,000 individuals will pay lower taxes as a direct result of these changes to CGT, including 50,000 basic rate taxpayers.
The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) made a typically thoughtful speech, not just on CGT but on her general thoughts on tax reliefs and how we review them, as well as on tax simplification. Again, I felt that she did not perhaps entirely address the interaction between the various measures—they cannot be seen in isolation. The other issues she mentioned are hugely important; for example, the investment in skills, but I did not think she was fair about what the Government have done on that agenda, which has resulted in record levels of apprenticeships. She is right to say that there are other issues such as that one, but these measures are part of a general package and are not the whole picture.
Amendments 175 and 176 were also tabled by the Opposition. In the 2016 Budget we announced the introduction of investors’ relief, benefiting long-term investors in unlisted companies. As has been explained, the amendments seek to end that new relief after a period of six years, with the option of an additional 12-month extension if agreed by both Houses, and ask the Chancellor to lay a review of the operation of the relief before both Houses.
The amendments are unnecessary as the Government keep all tax policy under review in line with normal tax policy making practice. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) again, I thought, did not really give credit to the interaction of different measures nor to the wider point that, given that the Government are bringing the measures forward to stimulate economic growth, there is absolutely no incentive for us not to keep a very close eye on them and review them at regular intervals. We do so all the time because we want measures to work—we want our measures to stimulate economic activity, and we do not in any way want them not to work. Indeed, there are a number of measures in the Bill to correct things that have been done in the past, where we feel that an improvement could make something work better.
We feel that there would be limited merit in conducting a review within six years as the first data on the uptake of the relief in its first year of operation will not be available to HMRC until 2021. Amendments 175 and 176 are neither needed nor useful, and we ask the Opposition not to press them to a vote.
New clause 14, again tabled by the Opposition, proposes that the Chancellor publish, within six months of the passing of the Bill, a report of the Treasury’s assessment of the value for money provided by entrepreneurs’ relief. As I have just said, the Government keep all tax policy under review because we want it to do what we have set out as the intention behind it, namely to stimulate economic activity and to make investment in business attractive to people. That review includes entrepreneurs’ relief, as demonstrated by recent action taken to ensure that the relief is effective, well targeted and not open to abuse. We will continue to act, where appropriate.
My predecessor as Financial Secretary has already informed the House of this, but it is worth reiterating, as it is germane to this point, that HMRC officials have commissioned an in-depth survey of taxpayers’ reasons for using entrepreneurs’ relief and its effects on behaviour. We expect the results of that survey, which will be published at some point in 2017, to inform future changes to the relief. I hope that that gives Members some comfort that the relief is being looked at very closely.
In our wider debate, some general points were made about the Budget being tilted towards the south-east of England. A number of points could be made in rebuttal, not least the debate we had last night, which touched on support for the oil and gas sector in Scotland. More generally, some interesting points were made about having a simpler tax system. In the next part of our debate on the Bill, there will be an opportunity to discuss the Office of Tax Simplification, but as this point came up during the current debate it is worth noting that the Bill puts the OTS on a statutory footing. Around half of the OTS’s 400 or so recommendations to date have already been taken on board. I again take on board the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). I feel sure that this a topic that we will return to over the coming months and years.
I thank all Members who have spoken in the debate.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 82
Reduction in rate of capital gains tax
Amendment proposed: 174, page 167, line 40, leave out clause 82.—(Rebecca Long Bailey.)
Jim Shannon
As always, the hon. Lady is wise in her interventions. I thank her for what she said, which underlines other important issues. If we can help at that critical time when the pressure is on, I believe that this House should do so. I hope that the Minister will do so, too, in her response.
The impact of the allowance on low-income households also needs to be addressed, as new clause 3 proposes. I hope we can do that at the right time. The new clause refers finally to
“ways in which the allowance could be changed to target low-income families with young children.”
Those points clearly illustrate for me what is necessary in this Bill, although the provisions may not be as hard and fast as I would like them to be.
Let me conclude; I am conscious of the time. In the longer term, there is a pressing need to adopt a more balanced approach to the resourcing of raising the personal allowance and increasing the transferable allowance. I fully support the transferable allowance and I would have hoped that the Government could commit themselves to it. Speaking as someone committed to progressive tax policy which targets those in the lower half of the income distribution scales rather than those in the top half, if the proposal means less money going to the personal allowance, in my judgment and, I believe, in the judgment of many in this House, that would be no bad thing.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I wish to speak to new clauses 15 and 19, and amendments 141 and 180 to 182, which were tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I shall also touch on a few of the other amendments and new clauses in the group, which has turned into a bit of a rag-bag of issues.
New clause 15 relates to VAT on energy-saving materials. The new clause would prohibit the making of any order that would have the effect of raising the rate of VAT on the installation of energy-saving materials or any individual category thereof. In short, it would prevent the Government from implementing their planned hike in VAT through secondary legislation.
For hon. Members who might have forgotten the background, let me briefly recap how our ability to debate this amendment today came about. Amid the fallout from the so-called “ultra-shambles” Budget, the Government were forced to become the first in history, so far as I am aware, to accept an Opposition amendment to their Budget. It was designed to block the Government’s planned 300% increase in VAT on solar panels and energy-saving materials—essentially a green energy tax hike. The solar tax alone would add £1,000 to the cost of a household solar energy installation, punishing those who are trying to do the right thing and do their bit to halt climate change. It would also put at risk thousands of jobs in an industry that is already expected to experience up to 18,700 job losses, as was conceded by the former Energy Secretary, and this tax raid would have caused even more damage. For those reasons, we tabled an amendment to the Budget to enable the Chancellor to use the Finance Bill to maintain the current rate of VAT on green energy and home insulation.
The Government initially claimed that a European Court ruling prevented them from stopping the tax hike, although it was apparent that they had failed to negotiate at European level to protect the renewables industry. None the less, the industry made very clear that there was room, even within the ruling, to avoid the drastic measures that they were planning to impose. When that led to a significant number of Conservative Members adding their weight to calls from Opposition Members, it appeared that the Government would be defeated on the issue. Ministers initially backed down, claiming that what we were proposing had been their position all along, only to avoid making such a commitment when pressed during Treasury questions and, just a few weeks later, during questions to the Secretary of State for the now abolished Department of Energy and Climate Change.
That is not surprising, given the Government’s abysmal failure to provide any kind of certainty for the renewable energy sector in the United Kingdom. Over the past six years, they have consistently undermined support by, for instance, cutting the feed-in tariff by 64%, scrapping tax relief for clean energy projects, and removing subsidies for new onshore wind farms. The £1 billion for investment in carbon capture and storage has also been scrapped. At the same time, safeguards to reduce the environmental risks posed by fracking have been stripped away, and fracking under national parks has been given the go-ahead. The executive director of Greenpeace UK put it succinctly recently, saying:
“A tax hike on solar panels was just the latest addition to a litany of poor decisions”.
He also said that the Government should accept that they had
“a reverse Midas touch on energy investment”.
This would be an opportune time for the new Chancellor and his team to signal a change of direction by accepting our new clause, but I fear that, given the abolition of the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the Conservative party’s husky-hugging days are long gone. I am pleased, however, that the Government have finally seen fit to publish the report by the Committee on Climate Change on the compatibility of UK onshore petroleum with meeting the UK’s carbon budgets. I can see now why they sat on it for four months.
The report states:
“Our assessment is…that onshore petroleum extraction on a significant scale is not compatible with UK climate targets”.
That, it says, will remain the case unless three key tests are met: first,
“Well development, production and decommissioning emissions must be strictly limited”;
secondly,
“gas consumption must remain in line with carbon budgets requirements”;
and thirdly, the report specifies the importance of
“Accommodating shale gas production emissions within carbon budgets.”
Does the Minister agree, therefore, that tighter safeguards in fracking—for which Labour consistently called during the passage of the Bill that became the Energy Act 2016 —are now absolutely necessary?
I digress. Let me conclude my remarks about new clause 15. Opposition Members want to ensure that the original solar tax U-turn is guaranteed in statute in the Finance Bill, to prevent a second U-turn. That would give the renewable energy market the certainty that it needs and deserves, and would, we hope, send a signal that the new Administration are prepared to look again at the future of the industry in a green economy. If we are to take seriously the intention of the new Ministers to rethink these fundamental issues, now is the time for them to show it.
New clause 19 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). As my hon. Friend explained so articulately, it would require the Government to review the impact of the measures in the Bill on households at different levels of income. It would also require the Chancellor to review the impact of Government fiscal measures on households at different levels of income at least once in each financial year. It is an excellent new clause, and it has the full support of the Labour Front Bench.
As I pressed on the Government earlier today in the capital gains tax debate and yesterday on corporation tax, this Bill has unfairness at its very core. The reduction in CGT alone amounts to a tax giveaway to 200,000 people—just 0.3% of the population—of around £3,000 a year on average. Clearly this Government conduct no distributional analysis of the measures they introduce, or if they do the results are so bad that they do not publish them. This amendment would force the Government to publish such analysis, and therefore I am pleased to have heard the Minister’s earlier comments; it seems that the Government are seriously considering this matter and I hope she takes it forward.
Amendments 180 to 182 specify that the chair and tax director of the OTS would be appointed and terminated only with the consent of the Treasury Committee, in line with what happens with the Office for Budget Responsibility. A similar Labour amendment, which would have had the same effect, was debated in the Public Bill Committee, but we did not divide the Committee on it. During the course of that debate I made the point that while Labour supports establishing the OTS on a statutory footing, we feel its independence is of the utmost importance. As I am sure the Minister is aware, Labour has placed on record our concerns about the OTS potentially being used for political purposes, and ensuring that the chair and tax director is accountable to the Treasury Committee seems a sensible approach to safeguarding its impartiality. Again, I am pleased to hear today that the Minister seems to be taking our opinions and those expressed in the House today seriously.
Amendment 141 would introduce a de minimis tax exemption for residual cash balances remaining in a share incentive plan when they are donated to charity, with an upper cap of £10. This seems like an extremely sensible suggestion, and the Labour Front Bench is supportive of the amendment. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) on tabling it and explaining it so articulately.
I shall say a few quick words on new clause 8 in the name of the hon. Members for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin), for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Philip Boswell). This new clause would require a review of how the changes to the tax on dividend income will affect directors of microbusinesses. There are some concerns, as we have heard today, that the changes to dividend taxation will have a detrimental effect on the owners of microbusinesses. Jason Kitcat, who has become quite famous today, has done some detailed analysis which shows that the dividend tax changes included in clause 5 and schedule 1 are somewhat regressive in nature. For instance, Crunch analysis shows that a limited company director paying themselves through dividends would be paying £1,528 more a year when their pre-tax profits are £48,000, whereas a director with £78,000 in pre-tax profits would only be paying £1,343 more in tax.
The Federation of Small Businesses has also stated that these measures have caused substantial disquiet among its members. This is especially acute for members on modest incomes who, unlike their employed counterparts, will now see a rise in their tax liabilities. This is very worrying and indeed makes the case for distributional analysis, referred to in relation to new clause 19, even more important. A review of the impact of these measures therefore seems quite sensible at this stage and we will support the SNP if it divides the House on this issue.
Finally, Government new clause 9 relates to the tax treatment of supplementary welfare payments in Northern Ireland. The Low Incomes Tax Reform Group has outlined some technical points for clarification on which I hope the Minister can shed some light: in essence, which payments will be taxable? The Budget said:
“Where the Northern Ireland Executive intends to top-up UK-wide benefits from within its block grant as it implements welfare reform, the Government will exempt from tax the top-up payments to non-taxable benefits.”
The implication, confirmed in the explanatory notes to the amendment, is that top-ups to taxable benefits will be taxable as well. However, if we take the payments to mitigate the impact of time-limiting contribution-based employment support allowance it seems that two situations are possible. One is that the person’s contribution-based ESA ends and they claim, or are already getting, income-related ESA. If the income-related ESA awarded is less than the person would have received through contribution-based ESA, they will receive a welfare supplementary payment to cover the difference. The second possibility is that their contribution-based ESA ends but they do not get income-related ESA, in which case the WSP will equal the full amount of the lost contribution-based ESA.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I thank the Minister and her Treasury colleagues, past and present, for their progress of the Bill through the House. I thank my own shadow Treasury colleagues, past and present, for their hard work in holding the Government to account. I thank my shadow Treasury team staff for their hard work on the Bill in the interesting times in which we have found ourselves. The Clerks deserve a mention for being pestered every five minutes by members of my staff—indeed, by the staff of other hon. Members, too. I make special mention of all Members who have worked very hard on the Bill and participated in a number of extremely thoughtful and interesting debates.
The Opposition will not be supporting the Bill on Third Reading. Although it contains some measures that we support, we simply cannot vote in favour of a Bill that does nothing to address the underlying issues in our economy. It has unfairness at its very core. I will, however, run briefly over the areas where we have found some consensus across the House.
First, there is the need to zero-rate VAT on women’s sanitary products. Many Members across the House spoke in support of this yesterday. I appreciate the Government’s sympathy with the campaign by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff). I place on record once again my congratulations to my hon. Friend who, along with many women outside this place, has campaigned tirelessly on this issue. Unfortunately, we still had to divide the House, as the Minister refused to put down a firm date for implementation of the zero rating. I hope the policy will not be kicked into the long grass once the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament. I know the Minister supports the general principle of the policy and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury will be very quick to call the Government out should they try to avoid taking this matter forward responsibly.
We have also found a broad level of agreement on country-by-country reporting. I am pleased that the Government saw fit to accept the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). Again, I put on record my thanks and congratulations to my right hon. Friend for her hard work and determination on this issue. The amendment stated that the Government “may” exercise their powers in this regard. However, I hope that the Government “will” exercise their powers in that regard, and I shall follow their progress very closely.
We support the Government’s steps towards closing the so-called Mayfair tax loophole, even though they did not accept our amendment to provide that all carried interest would be subject to income tax—but that, unfortunately, is where the consensus ends.
One of the biggest problems facing the economy at the moment is low rates of investment. Investment by businesses has already fallen for the last two quarters and investment by Government is scheduled to fall in every year of this Parliament. Overall investment as a share of GDP is lower now than it was in 2007—despite rising profits to companies and an all-time low cost of borrowing for the Government.
The Government maintained in yesterday’s debate that cuts to the headline rates of corporation tax and capital gains tax contained in the Bill would incentivise business investment, but they did not convince me or my hon. Friends that that would actually be the case. When we debated the cut to corporation tax yesterday, I provided some helpful figures to demonstrate that it is not clear that reductions will deliver the investment that the country desperately needs. For the benefit of Members who were not in the Chamber yesterday, I shall briefly recap.
The House of Commons Library analysis shows that business investment was higher in the year 2000 when corporation tax was at 30% than it was in 2015 when it was a full 10% lower. There is no obvious correlation between a low rate of corporation tax and high rates of business investment. Furthermore, corporations are not in need of cash in most cases. Figures provided by the House of Commons Library show that the UK corporation industry was sitting on cash reserves totalling £581 billion last year, so something is clearly precluding them from investing in the future. Frankly, the measures in this Bill will do nothing to change that behaviour.
Because of this lack of investment, productivity in the UK has fallen. Every hour of work in Britain produces one third less than every hour worked in Germany, the US or France, while real wages have fallen by 10% since 2008. That is simply not good enough—it is not good enough for British workers; it is not good enough for the economy; and it is not good for our sense of national pride. We need investment in infrastructure, in skills, in innovation and in industry. Labour is committed to providing £500 billion-worth of investment: £250 billion will be Government capital spending; and £250 billion will come from the national investment bank.
The national investment bank, along with regional banks, would transform regional economies and rebuild our financial system. Government capital expenditure would be used to improve vital infrastructure such as transport, housing and energy supply. Those are the kind of policies that businesses need to thrive, and I hope that the Government will consider them. They have not put such policies into the Finance Bill, but they have the power to put them into further pieces of legislation as this Parliament progresses.
The Bill fails to address the long-term pressures facing the UK’s energy supply industry and fails to deliver on our climate change targets, as agreed just a few months ago by the right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), now the Home Secretary. The renewable energy sector, as we heard in the previous debate, has been consistently undermined by this Government, and the Bill before us today does nothing to provide the stability or support that this industry craves.
Earlier today, we debated a specific amendment on the VAT treatment of energy-saving materials in the hope that the Government would make it clear in statute that the proposed solar tax hike would not go ahead. Unfortunately, the Government would not agree to our new clause and as such the insecurity for this industry continues. Furthermore, the Bill still makes sweeping changes to the climate change levy, which could seriously undermine its efficacy. In Committee of the whole House, we tabled an amendment calling for a review of the impact of the climate change levy on carbon emissions, but we were unfortunately defeated in the Lobbies. The change will go ahead with no assessment of whether the somewhat altered levy will do its job. That, too, is just not good enough from the British Government.
Over the weekend, we saw China and the United States ratify the Paris climate deal. Together they are responsible for 40% of the world’s carbon emissions, so that marks a huge step forward in climate change responsibility. Our Government, however, have not ratified the treaty, and have rowed back on almost all their green commitments since the election. I will not list them again, as it is an extensive list, but the Bill does nothing to tackle the issue of climate change head on, and, we believe, weakens measures that are already in place.
As for the key issue of tax avoidance, I must reiterate our view that the Government’s piecemeal approach of slowly introducing new little schemes and penalties is simply not enough. As I said yesterday, we need to see real commitment to an overarching strategy that provides genuine “legal teeth” to tackle the tax avoidance industry. At a time when our public services are tearing at the seams as a result of increased demand and a lack of resources, it is not acceptable for people to be allowed to avoid paying their taxes. It is time for tax avoiders to understand that being part of our society means paying one’s fair share towards the upkeep of that society. Labour has set out its stall with its tax transparency and enforcement programme, much of which was reflected in the amendments that we tabled yesterday. I hope that the Minister took some of our suggestions on board.
It is disappointing, to say the least, that the Government did not see fit to accept our new clause proposing a wide-ranging review of the UK tax gap and its causes. They have to appreciate that we must design a system that will really challenge the tax avoidance industry. We must overhaul our tax laws so that they are based on broad principles that will make avoidance difficult. A full public inquiry would expose the perversity of the industry, and would signal to the world that we are serious about stamping out tax evasion and avoidance wherever they may flourish.
Let me end by saying this. Labour wants to build a high-investment, high-wage economy. It wants to build an economy that will allow the UK to be a country of the future, leading the way on research and innovation; an economy in which everyone pays their fair share, and support is provided for those who need it; an economy and a society of which the British people can be proud. However, that can be done only with a Government who are committed to making it happen. We do not believe that the Bill will achieve those goals, and we will therefore vote against it this evening.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Finance Bill
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(7 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
I can worry the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) a little more by telling him that there was a “Hear, hear” from these Benches as well—[Interruption.] Members will be surprised at how loud we can be, and they will see that in the coming months and years.
It is absolutely time to have the debate about the best way to tax our businesses and to do what the Government claim they are doing—but are actually insufficiently doing through the changes to corporation tax—and support business in this country better through taxation that works but that also recognises and incentivises business.
Amendment 177 is a probing amendment that would sweep away corporation tax altogether and is intended to try to trigger that debate, which we should be having as a country. The reality is that the Government will continue to argue that a cut in corporation tax will somehow boost growth, but the evidence for a cut below 20% is simply not there. The Government are failing to ask whether corporation tax actually works. As the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster has said, it is only a matter of time before we hear the next scandal of a company managing to avoid paying corporation tax. Last week, it was Apple’s deal with Ireland, a few months before it was Google, before that it was Facebook and before that it was Amazon. Even the Labour party got into hot water for having managed to offset profits to reduce their corporation tax bill, so surely Government Members will recognise that there is an issue.
We have endless arguments about the morality of some of these large multinational corporations and how they operate. There is often outrage—sometimes faux outrage—in this place, but that is not good enough and it will not deal with the problem. We must also accept that while the Government are making unnecessary and damaging cuts to HMRC, it makes it harder to challenge these companies that are testing the limits of the law.
There is an underlying unwillingness to address corporation tax and its fitness for purpose regarding the reality of multinational corporations in the 21st century. As Martin Sorrell, the chief executive of WPP, said in 2013 during the Starbucks corporation tax scandal, for many multinational companies whether to pay corporation tax is simply a “question of judgment”, something to be decided according to PR perception and perhaps their own corporate social responsibility policies but not something decided by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs as it surely should be.
As the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster made clear, this is not and should not be seen in any way as a left or right issue. It is an issue of practicality. Last week in the Telegraph, Allister Heath published a piece entitled “The Apple fiasco shows why corporation tax is an outdated anachronism”. As the right hon. Gentleman has already said, Lord Lawson famously called for corporation tax to be a tax on revenue rather than profit. There are flaws with that but at least he was seeking to challenge the status quo, which is surely outdated. On the other side of the spectrum, The Guardian, Oxfam and the excellent Tax Justice Network have all rightly highlighted the ease with which multinationals can avoid corporation tax altogether.
There are ways in which we could better support business and could have a tax system that works. Businesses of all sizes are crying out for changes in the tax system. I know many businesses that say that the first thing they would like to see reformed is business rates and the second is VAT. There are industries that provide a huge amount to the British economy and pay a significant amount of tax that are not being listened to because they are not large corporations. For example, a change to VAT would have a much greater impact on the tourism and hospitality industries than tinkering with corporation tax in an attempt to grab headlines for being supposedly supporting business.
As the right hon. Gentleman has said, there is no obvious solution, but surely it is time to find a solution to properly, fairly and sensibly tax businesses in the 21st century. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) has already appointed Sir Vince Cable, the former distinguished Business Secretary, to lead a review of corporation tax and business rates for my party. That will make a contribution to the debate. Instead of claiming that the Government are standing up for business, surely it is time to acknowledge that yet more cuts to corporation tax over the next year will not truly deliver that and will not deal with the reality, which is that we are not collecting tax efficiently from companies that are now run in a very different way.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I rise to speak to amendment 162 and new clauses 10 and 11, which stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Bootle (Peter Dowd). I also support new clause 5, which has been explained articulately by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), and confirm the Opposition’s support for amendment 177, which has just been spoken to articulately by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland).
Amendment 162 would remove clause 45 from the Bill, thereby halting the Government’s cut to the rate of corporation tax to 17% by 2020. The Government claim that cutting the corporation tax rate would make Britain even more attractive to inward investors and more competitive, and that it would support growth and investment. I would be grateful if the Minister elaborated on the evidential basis for those claims.
We all know the theory that states that if we cut tax on profits there is more cash for companies to invest in expansion, research and development and labour, and, theoretically, we become more attractive to foreign businesses. The problem is that, somewhere in the development of that theory, the Chancellor forgot to check the reality, as the figures do not support that age-old Conservative mantra.
Figures provided by the House of Commons Library show that in 1998 business investment as a percentage of GDP was 10.8%, and that in 2000 it was 10.6%. The rate of corporation tax in those years was 31% and 30% respectively. In 2015, business investment as a percentage of GDP was 9.7% and the rate of corporation tax was considerably lower than that in 2000, at 20%. Why, therefore, were businesses not in a state of investment frenzy in 2015, if, indeed, slashing corporation tax is a golden ticket to investment? Of course, I appreciate that there are many factors that affect the level of business investment in the economy, but a comparison of the figures seems to suggest that a lower rate of corporation tax does not correlate with a higher level of business investment.
Let us look at a different variable, namely foreign direct investment. The level of FDI in the UK has been steadily falling since 2005; there have been a few anomalies along the way, but the trend is most definitely downwards. That has coincided with a steady reduction in the rate of corporation tax. In 2005 the level of FDI flows into the UK was £96.8 billion and corporation tax was 30%. In 2014 FDI was £27.8 billion and corporation tax was 21%. Again, there could be many factors at play, but the figures demonstrate that there is no strong correlation between low rates of corporation tax and higher rates of investment and FDI.
I appreciate that, to a degree, low corporation tax rates may attract some companies to locate here, because they will want to pay less tax, but attracting them to truly invest in the development of industry here, as well as encouraging our UK companies to flourish, is another matter entirely, and that requires much more than just a tax break.
According to the Government’s own analysis, this cut is expected to cost the Exchequer almost £1 billion in 2020-21, in addition to the £2.5 billion cost in the same financial year of cutting corporation tax to 19% from 2017. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has also calculated that the Government’s cuts to corporation tax have cost £10.8 billion a year. That gives rise to the question of whether the money could be better spent to incentivise much-needed investment in the UK. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that the Opposition most definitely think it could.
Many businesses already have cash. The House of Commons Library has provided figures showing that the total amount of currency and deposits, or cash reserves, held by non-financial companies in the private sector is currently at a 20-year high, at £581 billion. The problem, then, is not that businesses need more cash, but that other factors in our economy need improvement, including skills, infrastructure, innovation and productivity.
The £10.8 billion estimated by the IFS is a large sum that would be better invested in filling the gaps in our economy that are failing business. We should not be engaging in a race to the bottom to become the world’s next big immoral tax haven, but providing the building blocks to make business actually succeed, and with that comes more revenue in taxes as businesses flourish and well-paid jobs are created.
The Minster would do well to take notes at this point, because Labour has committed to such investment, through a national investment bank and the bank of the north, to address specifically those areas left behind after decades of regional decline. Our national and regional development banks would help unlock £500 billion of investment and lending to small and medium-sized enterprises, including £250 billion of capital investment in the infrastructure that we urgently need and to help prevent economic slowdown. The regional focus of development banks would enable the Government to make sure that investment and lending is spread around the country, not just siphoned into the south, and that it benefits from local knowledge and expertise, thus ensuring that no area in Britain is left behind. Our bank of the north would also unlock the potential of the north of England, with a push to deliver the sort of infrastructure and investment that it has been deprived of for far too long.
We have also committed to ensuring that our workforce have the skills that business needs in a modern economy, through reinstating the education maintenance allowance and maintenance grants for poorer students, which would be funded by a corporation tax rate of 21%. That is the kind of intervention businesses are looking for—policies with a substantive impact on a company’s ability to do and develop business, not simply cuts to the headline rate of corporation tax.
The cut to corporation tax brought about by clause 45 is not the best use of public money to support businesses in the UK. I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to join us in the Lobby to vote in favour of amendment 162.
The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) made some fantastic comments earlier on new clause 10, which relates to the patent box. The new clause would require the Chancellor to publish an independent review of the efficacy and value for money of the patent box legislation. The report would have to make an assessment of, first, the size and nature of the companies taking advantage of the patent box legislation; secondly, the impact of the patent box legislation on research and innovation in the UK, including supporting evidence; and, thirdly, the cost-effectiveness of the patent box legislation in incentivising research and development compared with other policy options. My hon. Friends and I are, of course, supportive of Government action to incentivise R and D, but we are not convinced that the patent box legislation has been efficient thus far in achieving that. We are not alone. Many commentators criticised the patent box, even before its introduction in 2012. The IFS has stated that the
“Patent Box is poorly targeted at research as the policy targets the income which results from patented technology, not the research itself…to the extent that a Patent Box reduces the tax rate for activity that would have occurred in the absence of government intervention, the policy includes a large deadweight cost.”
Rebecca Long Bailey
I will speak to a number of amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends. New clause 12 would require the Government to report within one year on the impact of the criminal offences relating to offshore income assets and activities created by clause 165. Amendments 167 and 168 would make it compulsory, rather than just possible, for HMRC to publish the names of those who hide behind entities such as companies and trusts when committing offshore tax evasion. Amendments 171 to 173 would expand the definition of “reasonable” referred to in clause 165 to include
“an honest belief that all of the information included was true and accurate”,
because the Opposition are concerned that the category of reasonableness is, on its own, far too subjective. Amendments 163 and 164 would strengthen the penalty for enablers of offshore tax evasion to include 100% of the fees received by the enabler of the service—for the lawyers in the Chamber, the principle of just enrichment, as it were. The aim of that is to neutralise somewhat the commercial aspect of the tax avoidance industry.
Amendments 165 and 166 would increase the minimum penalties for inaccuracy, failure to notify a charge to tax or failure to deliver a return, in relation to offshore matters and transfers, by 15% rather than the Government’s suggested 10%. In their consultation “Strengthening civil deterrents for offshore evaders” the Government considered increasing the minimum penalties by 15% rather than 10%. These are probing amendments to find out why the Government opted for a smaller increase than the one that they initially considered.
Up next we have amendment 170, which would increase from 10% to 15% the asset-based penalty introduced by schedule 22. The Government’s consultation on this penalty cited different rates for such asset-based penalties across the world, including in Italy where the penalty is up to 15%. As I will expand on in a moment, the Opposition think that we must be world leaders on stamping out tax avoidance, so I think our penalty should be, at the very least, on a par with precedents across the world. Those penalties are a start, but I would add that in the light of the latest Government consultation on tackling offshore tax evasion, which would introduce a separate offence not covered by the Bill, there appears to be a clear move by stakeholders to suggest that even higher penalties are required. I urge the Government to consider those suggestions carefully.
I confirm Labour’s support of cross-party amendment 145 on public country-by-country reporting, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). I place on record my thanks to her for the hard work that she has put into pursuing this important issue. It is testimony to that hard work that many Members across the House—including members of the Public Accounts Committee and more than 60 MPs from eight political parties, as my right hon. Friend illustrated—and organisations outside this House have supported this amendment. I will not go over the ground that she has covered, because she has put her case articulately. The enabling power contained in the amendment would give the UK scope to strengthen its influence on international tax transparency negotiations, and it would build greater consensus.
Finally, new clause 13 would require a comprehensive report into the UK tax gap, which is defined as the difference in any financial year between the amount of tax HMRC should be entitled to collect and the tax that it collects. Such difference derives from tax avoidance and evasion. The contents of the report would be as set out in the new clause, and it would have to be carried out in consultation with stakeholders. It would examine a number of areas relating to tax avoidance in the hope that the Government might review their policy and tailor it to deal adequately with such issues.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Does not new clause 13 expose the idiocy of closing HMRC offices, as the Government are planning to do to 90% of them? Would it not also allow Members to look at the number of staff in HMRC dealing with tax avoidance and set that against the 3,765 staff in the Department for Work and Pensions who deal with £1.2 billion of so-called social security fraud?
Rebecca Long Bailey
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The report is intended to highlight any deficiencies that might be found in HMRC’s resources or structures that affect its ability to tackle tax avoidance.
As Members who read new clause 13 will see, the part relating to HMRC goes into a lot of detail. Briefly, however, the report would be required to cover figures for the UK tax gap for the past five financial years; details of the model used by HMRC for estimating the UK tax gap; an assessment of HMRC’s efficacy in dealing with the UK tax gap; details of the tax revenue benefits for companies engaged in public procurement that are registered in the UK only for tax purposes; an assessment of the efficacy of the general anti-abuse rule in discouraging tax avoidance; consideration of the benefits for tax revenue of introducing a set of minimum standards in tax transparency for all British Crown dependencies and overseas territories; and, finally, an assessment of the impact on tax revenues of establishing a public register of all trusts located within the UK, British Crown dependencies and overseas territories.
The new clauses and amendments we have tabled are necessary now more than ever. I appreciate that we have limited time today, so we will push to a vote only new clause 13. As I have said, we will support my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley should she wish to press her amendment 145. We also support new clause 7, which has been articulately outlined by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin).
On the other amendments, I hope that the Minister will listen very carefully to the comments throughout my speech. The Government have ample opportunity outside the scope of the Bill—if, indeed, there is the will—to implement many of my requests. I will explain the rationale behind our various amendment.
The law on tax avoidance has been greatly influenced by the words of Lord Tomlin in the case of the Inland Revenue Commissioners v. the Duke of Westminster in 1935. Lord Tomlin decided that it was the right of every Englishman to organise his affairs so as to minimise his liability for tax. Sadly, that idea fuels the tax avoidance industry even today. In this age of so-called austerity, with pressure on the NHS, the armed forces, our teachers and our young people—the list goes on—quite frankly it is not acceptable for people to seek to avoid their taxes.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have come to agree that tax avoidance should be fought. The trouble is that this Government have failed to tackle the problem head-on, but simply tinkered here and there with piecemeal bits of legislation, and this Finance Bill is no different. We need a real commitment from this Government to an overarching strategy that provides genuine legal teeth to tackle the millionaire tax dodgers and the advisers surrounding them.
To take hon. Members on a little historical, magical mystery tour, in the 1980s, judges, not Parliament, developed a principle that put a dent in the tax avoidance industry—the Ramsay doctrine. The principle provided that artificial tax avoidance schemes should be analysed as a whole, not analysed by each piece separately. That meant that clever tax schemes could be dismantled by taking out all the artificial elements, with what was left being taxed as though the artificial elements had never existed. The effect on tackling tax avoidance schemes was huge.
Unfortunately, case law has moved on over the years, and we have now returned to a world in which tax law is considered to be entirely a matter of statutory interpretation. There are no general principles at work that can be used when interpreting legislation to combat tax avoidance in practice. In addition, our tax statutes are extraordinarily long and very detailed. That is meat and drink to tax specialists. Any Member of the House my age or above may remember the “Peanuts” cartoons. In one episode, Linus says, “Now I know the rules, I know how to get round them.” Linus could have been a tax lawyer.
Tax lawyers love playing with the rules, and we should not underestimate the expertise and determination of the tax avoidance community. In fact, one tax law specialist recently told me something really harrowing about a firm of accountants in the 1990s. A specific piece of legislation had been drafted to tax any trust that shifted offshore. An exception to that rule arose if one of the trustees died and the trust shifted offshore as a consequence. Those accountants canvassed a cancer ward to see whether the relatives of people dying of cancer would be prepared to have their dying family member signed up to act as a trustee of their clients’ trusts. They sought reassurances that the patient would die soon and promised to pay a small fee. That is an extreme case, but is an example of the depths to which people will sink to avoid paying their taxes and of how loopholes can be found in the depths of legislation.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I rise to support amendments 142 and 144 and new clause 4, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff). I stress that no deals have been struck with the Government on this issue, although we are open to being flexible and to discussing the matter at length with Ministers. I specifically congratulate my hon. Friend and all hon. Members who have campaigned so fervently on the issue. I will keep my comments brief, as my hon. Friend has already made her case very well. I confirm that she has the full support of the Opposition.
The amendments are designed to ensure that the Government’s pledge to abolish the so-called tampon tax has a clear deadline for implementation. My hon. Friend proposes 1 April 2017 or 1 April 2018. I must stress that Government amendment 161 does not address, and in fact suggests a degree of ambiguity, on this specific issue and the scope of our negotiations about VAT within the ambit of our EU membership. The job is not yet done, as the Minister knows. I know that she supports the idea generally and I welcome the comments she is likely to make, but more pressure is most certainly needed.
The explanatory notes to clause 125 state:
“This clause reduces the VAT rate on the supply of women’s sanitary products from 5 % to zero %.”
The Minister will be well aware that that is not the case. The clause does not zero-rate women’s sanitary products; it just provides the Treasury with enabling powers to do so at a time of its choosing and leaves wide open the question of when it will do so. My hon. Friend’s amendments would rectify that by imposing deadlines by which the tampon tax must be a thing of the past— 1 April 2017 in amendment 142, or 1 April 2018 in amendment 144. I hope the Minister will accept one of those amendments. I see no real reason why the Government need to delay this further, especially in the light of the decision to leave the EU.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I am conscious that we are trying to make progress, so I am afraid that I will not take any interventions.
As was said earlier, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury stated during the debate in the Public Bill Committee:
“I am optimistic that we will have the measure in place by 1 April 2017; I am happy to put that on the record.”
He also stated that
“the Government have an open mind as to whether we would accept the amendment on Report, when we hope to have greater clarity. We are confident that by 1 April there should be no reason why the measure is not in place. It is possible that the Government will come forward with our own amendment, but we may well simply accept amendment 5.”––[Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 7 July 2016; c. 146.]
As has been noted, my hon. Friend has indeed tabled such an amendment again, and a second amendment that would allow the Government even more flexibility by providing an extra year. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) made some very important points, and tabled another amendment setting a deadline of the start of the next calendar year. The Minister therefore has a vast array of options—more than the Government did in Committee—so I hope she will not disappoint my hon. Friend and, for that matter, the rest of the House.
A related issue has been raised a number of times with the Minister, but I am not convinced it has been fully addressed, so I would be grateful if she provided further clarification. There is concern that the full benefits of the zero-rating of sanitary products will not be passed on to women, and that some retailers will simply seek larger profit margins. When the rate of VAT was reduced to 5%, the Government said they would monitor whether the benefits were passed on to consumers. I asked the Minister in the Public Bill Committee to provide more information about whether this assessment ever occurred, and if so, what the data showed. Will she provide an answer? My hon. Friend has of course taken the initiative in negotiating directly with some retailers, who have committed to passing on the cut in full, but some smaller retailers may not do the same. What steps will the Government take to ensure that women will benefit from this change, not the pockets of retailers?
Finally, my hon. Friend has also tabled new clause 4, which would require the Chancellor to carry out an assessment of the revenue raised from VAT on women’s sanitary products since 1 January 2001, when the then Labour Government introduced the lower rate of VAT, and to lay before Parliament a report of that assessment within 12 months of the Act coming in to force. It must include an estimate of the total revenue raised since January 2001, and provide information about government policy relating to this revenue. As my hon. Friend has explained, that would address future funding for women’s organisations that benefited from the tampon tax fund set up by the previous Chancellor when pressure was originally brought to bear over the issue. We hope that the Minister can give us some reassurances that those services will receive the secure long-term funding they deserve. Should my hon. Friend divide the House, we will support the new clause.
I urge the Minister to accept at least one of my hon. Friend’s amendments and to bring to a conclusion the campaign against the tampon tax, an outcome that will owe much to the hard and determined work of my hon. Friend, along with the women who have fought for it outside this place. Finally, I place on the record my support for the comments made by SNP Members on maternity products, another area that I urge the Minister to look into.
Jane Ellison
I rise in 2016 to resume a debate that I first started with some college friends in 1986; I did not think then that this subject would end up being debated across the Chamber of the House of Commons, but I am glad that we are doing so.
The issue of VAT on women’s sanitary products—the tampon tax—has inspired a great deal of interest, as the speeches in this debate and the interest from our constituents have demonstrated. I will try to explain the Government’s approach and the amendment that we have tabled, and to give the Opposition some comfort on some of the questions they have asked, because there really is not very much between us on this issue and we want to try to make progress.
The Bill as it stands includes provisions to apply a zero rate of VAT to women’s sanitary products, with the intention being to do so as soon as possible. The Government strongly support doing so. We agree with the argument put forward by many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff), that VAT should not be applied at the current 5% reduced rate. We have a shared objective of achieving that goal as quickly as we can, in a manner that is legal and proper—I will come back to that—and that, in our new changed circumstances after the referendum vote, will not have a negative impact on our negotiations over the UK’s exit from the European Union.
Achieving that shared goal in a legal manner before we leave the EU requires a change in EU legislation. That must follow a proposal from the Commission and the unanimous agreement of all member states. We have been actively pursuing that, and have made progress, which some Members have alluded to. The former Prime Minister secured the unanimous agreement of all EU Heads of State and Government that the rules must change at the Council in March. Prior to the referendum we received assurances from the Commission that it would publish a legislative proposal for us at the earliest opportunity and definitely before the end of this year. When the Government introduced the Finance Bill, they expected to be able to apply the zero rate soon after Royal Assent.
The referendum result changes the circumstances—my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury explained in Committee that the result affected the prospects for rapid implementation. However, I reassure those Members who have tabled amendments and all other hon. Members that we will not rest on the issue. The Government will continue to push for the proposal to be brought forward and agreed to as soon as possible. However, until we leave the EU we need the legislative change to introduce zero-rating; until we have it, fixing a date risks contravening EU law at a time when we are entering critical negotiations with the EU about our future.
Turning to those negotiations, the Prime Minister has been very clear that our rights and obligations remain in place until we leave the European Union. That is important: at this time it would be against the UK’s interests and the interests of all our constituents and of the businesses and universities in our constituencies to go into conflict with our legal obligations. We would risk jeopardising our negotiating position by pre-empting EU legislation on sanitary products. We would also risk the UK’s rights in other areas where we expect other EU member states and the Commission to respect their obligations to us. As the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU said in his statement earlier, we must act in good faith towards our European partners. That is why the Government have proposed an alternative amendment that delivers on the intentions of the hon. Member for Dewsbury but ensures consistency with EU law. I hope that that reassures the House that we will give effect to the provisions in the Bill and commence zero-rating. We are pledging to continue to seek the powers to do so, but to put zero-rating into effect at the first moment when it is consistent with our legal duties.
The shadow Financial Secretary is concerned about the vagueness of that phrase. The Interpretation Act 1978 and schedule 1 to the European Communities Act 1972—I am sure it is everyone’s bedside reading—give exact meaning to the phrase “EU obligation”, which is our obligations under EU law. We are clear about that and we want that commitment in the Bill. That is a major step forward for the hon. Member for Dewsbury and everyone who has campaigned for zero-rating. The amendment commits the Government to commence by 1 April 2017 unless it is unlawful to do so. If on that date it is unlawful, there is a duty on the Government to commence at the first point when we can do so legally. That is the strongest commitment we can give, and one that I am happy to give today. I urge all hon. Members to support it.
On the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), I have tried to offer them and other hon. Members reassurance that the Government and I want the tampon tax removed as soon as possible. We will keep up our engagement in Europe to secure that, but, equally, hon. Members will understand that the Government must act in accordance with the law. Until we leave the EU, that includes our obligations, as I have said. Those obligations prevent us from removing the tax at the moment. We are trying to change it, but we cannot be certain of the timetable, because such legislation has to be agreed by all 28 member states.
For that reason, we must oppose the amendments—they would set in UK law a fixed latest date for zero-rating—but I stress again that there is no great difference between our intention and that of Opposition Members. We all want the tax ended as soon as possible. I hope that will happen by 1 April 2017 and I am even more hopeful that it will happen by 1 April 2018, but it cannot be guaranteed. The Government’s amendment will ensure that zero-rating starts domestically at the first opportunity consistent with our legal obligations.
I ask Members to look at what we are saying and to realise how close together we are. I also urge them not to be irresponsible in supporting something that will bring us into breach of our obligations. The duty in the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Dewsbury would impose a requirement on the Government to act illegally. We would be in breach of articles 1 and 110 of the principal VAT directive. Whatever Members’ views are of what the directive requires—we are making progress towards changing it—I would be surprised if members of Her Majesty’s official Opposition, or indeed any Member of the House, thought we could disregard it at such a crucial juncture, when the disregarding of the Commission’s and other nations’ obligations towards us could be significantly against the UK’s national interest. I again quote my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union from earlier today, when he said:
“Until we leave the European Union, we must respect the laws and the obligations”
of membership. I agree with him.
I have every sympathy with the hon. Member for Dewsbury—[Interruption.] I should say that I have every sympathy with the amendments. I think she hinted that, if we do not have the legal change we need by 2018, the Government might have to introduce other measures. Our amendment solves the problem of having to revisit a law we have passed that we know might be illegal by April 2018. I suggest that that is not the most sensible way to legislate. The Government’s amendment achieves the same thing but keeps us within our legal obligations.
The other amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Dewsbury calls for a report on the revenue accrued from VAT on women’s sanitary products since 2001 and the tampon tax fund. I am very happy to reaffirm the Government’s commitment to the fund. As I have said, we are taking all actions available to stop charging this VAT as soon as possible, but until that can be achieved the revenue it raises will be put into the tampon tax fund and directed to women’s health and support charities. So far, the £15 million a year fund has supported 25 charities, including many that are well known to us in this House: The Eve Appeal, SafeLives, Women’s Aid and the Haven. I am sure many of us will be “wearing it pink” next week. We will think then of the wonderful charities—I am very familiar with them from my previous role as Public Health Minister—that are benefiting. Funding has also been allocated to Comic Relief and Rosa—again, a charity I know very well—to disburse over the coming year to a range of grassroots women’s organisations, many of which have been championed so ably by Members across the House, in particular by some Labour Members.
Charter for Budget Responsibility
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I begin by congratulating the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke), on his well-deserved promotion. I also welcome the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), to the Front Bench. I am looking forward to our first debate, and I hope there will be many more to come.
I thank all Members across the House for taking part in this important debate. My favourite quote was from the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) who said that the ex-Chancellor’s long-term economic plan was like a unicorn. We also heard from the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who rightly highlighted the importance of intergenerational fairness, although I am not sure that this charter actually delivers that, by any stretch of the imagination. We also had a fantastic speech from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin), who highlighted the problems associated with neoclassical economic thought in a very articulate way.
As the House will be aware, the Opposition did not support the charter for budget responsibility that we are debating today. And as we have heard throughout the debate, the Government were fully aware last summer that large swathes of respected economists did not find the then Chancellor’s charter for budget responsibility economically credible—if indeed the true intention was to generate growth and prosperity for all. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the shadow Chancellor, said at the time:
“The charter before us today…has little basis in economics.”—[Official Report, 14 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 437.]
This has proved to be the case. If, however, the charter was simply the vehicle to implement an economic ideology that was dedicated to sucking wealth up to the top 1% and that systematically undermined and dismantled public services, it was a very clever plan indeed. I do not intend to spend time in this debate arguing about the moral conundrums of Conservative party economic doctrine, however. Today, I will try to be the moral compass of the new Chancellor and his team, as we are all acutely aware that the economic future of the country is standing at a critical crossroads.
As the shadow Chancellor has already outlined today, the Government have missed or been forced to abandon all three pillars of the charter. The welfare cap was missed in the last financial year and is due to be missed in each year until the end of this Parliament. The debt-to-GDP target has been spectacularly missed. Not only is the ratio of debt to GDP not falling; it has risen, with public sector net debt at 83.3% in the last financial year. Finally, the budget surplus, quite impossible to achieve without finding funds to fill the black hole that opened up in the March Budget, seems to have been more or less conveniently abandoned now on the pretext of the EU referendum result.
I suspect that many on the Government Benches realised some time ago that the target of a £10 billion surplus by 2020 was simply unachievable without drastic cuts to public spending, resulting in a short-term budget surplus. However, the price to pay simply to save embarrassment for missing this fiscal target was long-term economic stagnation and the loss of vital public services. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury may tell the House that the current charter provides a get-out clause whereby the rules are suspended if the OBR assesses that there is a negative shock to the economy. However, the OBR said that it will not publish any revised figures until the autumn, so I urge the Chancellor and his team not to risk floating along directionless until then.
Our approach would allow substantial investment in infrastructure and skills to address the underlying issue of low productivity in our economy. Unfortunately, business investment has been falling for the past two quarters, even ahead of the referendum, and early indicators of pauses in investment and threatened job losses suggest that it could fall even further. British business needs the Government to step in and invest in industry to make Britain a better and more stable place to do business. Businesses do not want cuts to the headline rate of corporation tax. They do not want a raft of foreign takeovers as a result of the fall in the pound following Brexit. British businesses and their workforces should be the kings and queens of global industry. We desperately need a Government that are genuinely committed to what I call “industrial patriotism”, but we have sadly not seen that for some years.
Fortunately, the Chancellor and his team have an ideal opportunity to turn things around and develop their own direction for fiscal policy. The new Prime Minister said in her first speech to the nation:
“When we take the big calls we will think not of the powerful, but you.”
We know that the new Chancellor supported further welfare cuts despite public outcry, so I must educate him as to how bad things really are. We have suffered nearly a decade of economic decline, increasing and stark regional inequality, and deep-rooted alienation and despair in communities that feel left behind, so it was no wonder that people voted in their droves during the referendum. They voted for an answer, for someone or something to blame for the dire economic situation that their communities were in.
Only a few weeks ago, the first Salford poverty truth commission was launched to examine the facets of poverty experienced throughout everyday life in Salford. At the launch, 15 members of the community stood up with real guts and courage in front of a packed hall to tell their individual stories. If the Chancellor and his team could hear what I heard that day, they would know that the economy in its current state is not working for the many.
I heard tales of people suffering horrific childhoods, turning to alcohol and drugs to numb the pain in the absence of counselling—there is no support for them, given the cuts in mental health provision. I heard from families on the breadline, unable to afford to heat their homes and forced to use food banks. I heard from those the Government would deem to have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps—people who are university educated and with well-paid jobs, but still struggling, crushed by a mountain of household debt. I heard from mothers forced to turn to prostitution just to keep a roof over their children’s heads. I heard about families hiding behind the sofa when the loan shark or bailiffs came calling, telling their children to be as quiet as mice. Mr Speaker, you may know that L. S. Lowry, the famous Salford artist, was a rent collector by day in the 1920s, knocking on doors just like today’s bailiffs. He tried to encapsulate the misery and struggle that he encountered in the pictures that he painted. What would he say if he knew that families were still going through the same agonising struggles in 2016?
We have called this debate today to give the Chancellor and his team of Ministers an opportunity to set out their stall, after 10 years of failed austerity economics. It is an opportunity to turn this country around and address regional imbalances; an opportunity to provide investment support for businesses in those areas hit hardest by economic decline; and an opportunity to invest in skills and infrastructure, and to allow businesses to form the capital to invest in themselves. We can make this nation’s economy the envy of the world and we can ensure that the prosperity we generate when we do that is enjoyed by the many not the few, but the direction of fiscal policy over the next few months is critical to that. It is one of the biggest calls this Chancellor is ever going to have to make. I really hope that his team has listened today and that the Prime Minister’s gesture towards “prioritising the many”, as Labour Members do, is not merely rhetoric.
Oral Answers to Questions
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hammond
The hon. Gentleman is right and I thank him for his kind words. We need to remind ourselves that we are running a 6.9% of GDP external account deficit, and that has to be funded somehow. It has been funded by an extraordinarily successful run of foreign direct investment into the UK—more than into any other country in the European Union. That has slowed as uncertainty around the referendum has been created. We now need to generate the confidence to allow it to resume.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I take this opportunity to welcome the Chancellor to his post, and also the Chief Secretary and other new Treasury Ministers. There is a real concern that the uncertainty surrounding Brexit is forcing many businesses and international banks to consider moving their core operations and the jobs that go with them overseas. Banks in particular make use of their EU banking passport arrangements to operate within the UK, so what measures will the Chancellor be taking to avoid the loss of those arrangements?
Mr Hammond
The hon. Lady is right to say that passporting is an important feature of the arrangements we have with the European Union. In the negotiations that we will have in the future with the European Union about Britain’s future relationship with it, protecting those rights for our very important financial services sector, which I should emphasise is not just about London—two thirds of financial services jobs in this country are outside London—will be a very important part of those negotiations.
Rebecca Long Bailey
Moving back to the issue of ARM, analysts this week have predicted a raft of foreign takeovers linked to the fall in the value of the pound following Brexit. The Chancellor stated this week that Britain is open to foreign investment, barely a week after the Prime Minister wanted to oppose such takeovers, so has the Government’s approach to securing new investment been reduced in the space of a week from an ambiguous industrial policy to merely slashing corporation tax and hoping for the best?
Mr Hammond
No. The UK remains very much open to foreign investment, but we are very clear that we want investors who will invest in British technology, British jobs and businesses headquartered, based and directed from the UK. We are not open to asset-strippers.
Draft Major Sporting Events (Income Tax Exemption) Regulations 2016
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. It is also a pleasure to be back in a Committee with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury after what I hope was a welcome rest over the weekend for both of us.
The draft regulations exempt non-resident competitors in the 2017 world athletics and Paralympics championships and the 2016 anniversary games from income tax on their earnings from the event. The idea of exempting earnings from major sporting events from income tax for non-UK residents is not new; indeed, it goes back to 2006 and 2010, when the Labour Government introduced special provisions to exempt non-residents who were coming to the UK to take part in certain sporting events—the 2012 London Olympics and the 2011 champions league final. Exemptions of that kind have historically been made through primary legislation in Finance Bills, but the Government announced in the 2014 Budget that they would legislate to enable income and corporation tax relief to be given in relation to major sporting events via secondary legislation. Provision to that effect was made in section 48 of the Finance Act 2014 and the draft regulations are the first set of exemptions made by virtue of the powers granted.
The Minister will be aware that the Opposition were not opposed to the principle of providing tax exemptions for certain sporting events, but we expressed concern about the uncertainty regarding the Government’s approach to selecting such events. During the passage of the Finance Act 2014 we moved an amendment to publish a formal review of those decisions every five years. Speaking for the Opposition at the time, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) stated
“tax exemptions for sporting events have been dealt with on an ad hoc basis in Finance Bill to Finance Bill. As a result, some athletes and professional sportsmen and women have benefited from exemptions from some sporting events, while others have not.”
She also said:
“Clause 45 and our amendment 13 address this piecemeal legislation relating to sporting events and the fact that the issue recurs at every Finance Bill.”
At that time we questioned what other sporting events the Government envisaged becoming eligible for tax exemptions for non-resident competitors and whether the Government planned to extend the number and range of events that were eligible. Our amendment would have required a review of how the power was being used in that respect. Sadly, the Government did not support the amendment at the time, stating:
“The Government might use the power only once in the next five years, for example, so undertaking to publish reviews to such a schedule would not be proportionate.”––[Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 8 May 2014; c. 238-239, 243-244.]
I appreciate that the Government have only used the power once since it was introduced—in the statutory instrument before us today, which makes provision only for the 2017 world athletics and Paralympics championships and the 2016 London anniversary games—but will the Minister confirm whether the Government have plans to extend the scope of those tax emptions beyond football, athletics and the Olympic and Commonwealth games?
I am particularly concerned about the gender inequality inherent in the relief. Will the Minister confirm whether women’s events are being treated equally? For example, was the UEFA women’s Champions League final held at Stamford Bridge in London on 23 May 2013 given the same tax exemption as the 2013 men’s Champions League final held at Wembley? I understand that it was not. Why do the Government deem the men’s game to be a major sporting event but not the women’s? The impact assessment for that specific legislation stated that the measure was likely to affect more men than women. Those anomalies are exactly why the Opposition called for a review of the legislation every five years, so that we could see the Government’s approach to selecting events. It seems to me that there is an ingrained gender inequality that the Government must address, and I welcome the Minister’s comments in that regard.
I am also concerned that no tax information and impact note has been published for the instrument, despite the explanatory memorandum stating it would be published on the usual section of gov.uk. Prior to coming to the Committee, the only available note I could find there related to the 2014 Act and not the statutory instrument. Will the Minister confirm what impact analysis has been carried out, especially on equality? Will he also clarify what measures are in place to ensure that this relief and others are not used for tax avoidance?
Turning to the events listed in the statutory instrument, it is my understanding that the tax exemption was a condition of the international bidding process for all countries that wanted to host the 2017 world athletics championships. Which international bodies made the exemption a condition of the bidding process? While no doubt appreciating the economic benefit that such sporting events bring to local economies, does the Minister think it right that international sporting bodies should force Governments across the world, not just in the UK, to make an income tax exemption a requirement of hosting specific sporting events?
The Government state that the exemption for the 2016 anniversary games is designed to support the legacy of the 2012 London Olympic and Paralympic games, which were great sporting events that many people across the country thoroughly enjoyed. As an aside from the regulations, I would be interested generally to know whether the Government have made any assessment of the economic effect of the legacy of the games in the immediate Newham area.
The regulations are a continuation of the policy of both the previous Government and the last Labour Government of exempting from income tax non-resident competitors’ earnings from some major sporting events, and we will not oppose them. However, I hope that the Minister can give satisfactory reassurances on the concerns that I have outlined.
Finance Bill (Fifth sitting)
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I will keep my comments brief on this clause, which amends the Value Added Tax Act 1994 to enable public bodies to get VAT refunds when they enter into cost-sharing arrangements. I hope that the Minister can address a few points. First, the explanatory note indicates that some bodies will lose some of their existing funding as a result of the clause. It would be helpful if he could explain the criteria that the Government will apply. Secondly, can he give us more detail on the areas where the Government are encouraging shared services specifically? The tax information and impact note states:
“To date these services have mainly been in the fields of HR, recruitment and training, and IT services.”
Will the Minister confirm whether the Government plan to encourage shared services in other areas?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
It is a great pleasure to welcome you back to the Chair, Sir Roger. As we have heard, the clause will allow named non-departmental public bodies and similar bodies to claim a refund on VAT they incur as part of a shared service arrangement. That will encourage public bodies to share back-office services where doing so results in greater efficiencies of scale. Non-departmental public bodies such as the research councils and some NHS bodies cannot always recover the VAT they pay on the purchase of goods and supplies because they do not always undertake business activities—for example, those activities where an onward charge is made. That includes VAT charged when one such body supplies services to others under a shared services arrangement.
Current UK VAT legislation allows Government Departments and NHS bodies to recover the VAT they pay on outsourced or shared services, and we are now extending that scheme to non-departmental public bodies and similar arm’s length bodies. That will ensure VAT does not act as a barrier to those organisations outsourcing and sharing services, which will encourage efficiency savings and deliver better value for taxpayers’ money.
Tax liabilities, including VAT, are catered for in departmental spending settlements. To ensure that there is no double counting, it will be necessary for the Treasury to be satisfied that public funding of those bodies is adjusted where VAT has already been compensated for. Otherwise, the Exchequer could be paying twice. We will also require eligible bodies to claim VAT in the same financial year in which the purchase was made, and not in a later year. The change will affect around 124 departmental bodies.
The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles asked whether some bodies will lose funding. If a non-departmental public body gets its VAT back, the Department’s spending profile will be adjusted accordingly, making it revenue-neutral. Bodies are therefore not losing out as a consequence of the clause. She also asked for more details on how the Government are encouraging shared services. We will accept bids and make decisions on a case-by-case basis. It is difficult for me to say much more at this point, but if efficiencies can be found, any sensible Government would want to find them, and we would not want the VAT system to get in the way.
The clause will allow named non-departmental and similar bodies to claim a refund of the VAT they incur as part of a shared service arrangement used to support their non-business activities, which will ensure that VAT is not a disincentive for public bodies to share back-office services and will encourage better value for money.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 111 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 112
VAT: representatives and security
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Rebecca Long Bailey
These clauses are part of a package of anti-fraud measures announced at Budget 2016 to address online VAT fraud, of which I have direct experience. A business in my constituency has suffered from overseas sellers on platforms such as Amazon and eBay undercutting its prices by avoiding payment of VAT. Indeed, I have corresponded directly with the Minister on that issue, so I am pleased that the Government have decided to take note of my concerns.
Clause 112 will allow Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to require a person established in a country outside the EU to appoint a representative to account for VAT on sales to consumers and non-taxable persons in the UK. It will also permit HMRC to require security from the seller for payment of the tax. The appointment of a representative to account for VAT is used in other circumstances, so the change simply extends the circumstances in which HMRC can exercise that power.
The Opposition have long called on the Government to go faster and further in cracking down on tax evasion, so we welcome the intention. However, we are concerned that the measure might not be fully effective because HMRC first has to identify that a person is not accounting for VAT on sales into the UK and then it has to direct them to appoint a representative who is prepared to act. That may be difficult because the representative will then be responsible for accounting for VAT if the supplier does not do so and may be liable for the tax. It would be helpful if the Minister could specifically address that point. Furthermore, it seems possible for a determined fraudster to use different companies or aliases to avoid the impact of an HMRC direction. Will the Minister tell us today how the Government intend HMRC to take effective enforcement action on that?
Clause 113 will impose joint and several liability on the operators of online marketplaces to account for VAT on sales by overseas sellers to UK consumers and non-taxable persons. As with clause 112, the clause suffers from the defect that HMRC’s powers take effect only if the overseas seller has failed to comply with VAT rules and if HMRC issues a direction, which essentially means that VAT is likely to be lost, and may continue to be lost for some time, before HMRC acts. Will the Minister tell us today how he intends to address that problem?
Also of note is that clause 113 applies to any overseas business—in other words, other EU and non-EU businesses—but the measures are meant to be targeted at non-EU businesses only. HMRC states that, in practice, it will use the power only
“where overseas businesses do not have a genuine business establishment in the EU.”
However, there is a view that the legislation should reflect what is intended in practice and that the current drafting raises the question of whether the measure is actually compatible with EU law. EU-established businesses could be caught by the legislation despite there already being local rules for them to comply with and mutual assistance procedures for the UK to use. Can the Minister assure us that such businesses will not be affected? One way to address the situation would be to amend clause 113 to mirror clause 112 to cover only non-EU established businesses. What is the Minister’s view on that suggestion? Are the Government considering any further amendments?
A consultation was launched alongside these two clauses at Budget 2016 as part of a package of measures to address the issue. It was a live consultation on what due diligence should be undertaken by online marketplaces to ensure that overseas sellers are registered for VAT and account for it on their sales. We support HMRC taking action to target abuse and non-compliance in this area, but business groups have expressed concern that the primary target should be those who seek to evade the tax, rather than legitimate businesses that unwittingly deal with them. Can the Minister reassure those businesses on that point?
Her Majesty’s Treasury estimates the VAT loss attributable to sales by overseas businesses via online marketplaces to have been as much as £1 billion to £1.5 billion in 2015-16. Acknowledging that the amounts involved are only estimated, but still significant, it would be helpful if the Government could expand on how that estimate has been reached.
The Labour party is prepared to offer support for a crackdown on VAT fraud but, given the understandable concerns of business about the administrative burdens, the Government need to be very clear about the amounts involved and the benefits to the taxpayer. Similarly, we hope that Ministers will report back to Parliament on the success of the scheme as well as on wider action to narrow the tax gap so that we can measure such success. Although the Government have estimated that they will receive an additional £365 million in revenue as a result of the measures by the end of the Parliament, that figure is obviously some way short of £1 billion. Will the Minister tell us why such a gap will remain and what further action the Government are considering?
On the detail of the proposed due diligence scheme, the primary concern that businesses expressed to us is that the scheme targets intermediaries in the supply chain, not those failing to comply. That places an additional burden on legitimate business and, although that may be justifiable to collect tax owed, there is a danger that it gives a message to potential tax evaders that they will not be pursued by HMRC. We support HMRC’s aim of minimising the burdens on legitimate business arising from the scheme and limiting them to only those that are necessary and proportionate, but HMRC should also take account of the resources available to different businesses to meet the compliance burden. For example, small and medium-sized enterprises might struggle with compliance and need special protection to avoid an adverse impact on cross-border trade.
It is clear that enforcement is a fundamental issue for HMRC. Although there is a risk of missing trader fraud and misdeclarations in any VAT system, there can be no substitute for HMRC providing effective monitoring and enforcement. For the measures to be effective, HMRC must retain the role of primary enforcer, and it needs to be sufficiently resourced to monitor, investigate and administer trade in the area. With that in mind, does the Minister believe that HMRC currently has adequate resources to do that, given the cuts it has borne?
The Minister will be aware that in some EU member states the problem is avoided by making the online marketplace responsible for accounting for VAT. That is likely to be effective where the marketplace actually collects the selling price for the seller. Of course, it may not be effective if all the marketplace does is act as an intermediary.
Finally, there may be anomalies, for example when an overseas individual sells personal goods, which are not subject to VAT, to UK purchasers, as VAT should not be charged in such circumstances. Any thoughts that the Minister has on lessons from elsewhere and the Government’s evaluation of other systems for collecting VAT would be helpful for us to consider.
Opposition Members are pleased that the Government are taking action to tackle online VAT fraud, and we are fully supportive of the clauses in principle. However, I would be grateful if the Minister addressed some of the many issues I have raised with the legislation and the wider strategy for tackling online fraud generally.
Mr Gauke
As we have heard from the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles, the clauses make changes to ensure that the high street and online businesses that pay UK VAT can compete on a level playing field with overseas sellers that, on occasion, do not. The clauses will ensure that more VAT is paid by overseas sellers who store their goods in UK fulfilment houses and sell those goods via online marketplaces, will give HMRC stronger powers to make overseas business appoint a UK tax representative, and will ensure that online marketplaces are part of the solution to the problem. The measures are forecast to reduce VAT evasion and raise £875 million in extra tax over the next five years, as certified by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility.
A recent survey by the British Retail Consortium shows that more than 20% of non-food retail spending now occurs online, which means that the UK public can now buy goods faster and cheaper than ever before. British businesses also have an online platform to enter markets they could normally never have imagined. A small village business can now supply high-quality local goods across the United Kingdom and even the world. However, that small business is competing with thousands of online sellers overseas, some of which are evading VAT. That abuse has grown significantly and now costs the UK taxpayer between £1 billion and £1.5 billion per year. Those overseas sellers are competing with all businesses trading in the UK, abusing the trust of UK consumers and depriving the Exchequer of significant revenue.
Rebecca Long Bailey
Committee members will be pleased to know that my comments on this clause will be very brief. The clause simply puts it beyond doubt that charities in the Isle of Man jurisdiction may qualify for the VAT release available to other charities in the UK. This provision gives effect to the principal VAT directive and the 1979 customs and excise agreement with the Isle of Man. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm whether he has yet had any discussions with the Government that suggest that, following Brexit, the principal VAT directive will not—subject, of course, to the terms of any subsequent trade deal—apply to the UK.
The Minister may also like to clarify any early thinking about how Brexit may affect general trade relations, such as those with the Isle of Man, which is not a member of the EU or the European economic area. It has access to the single market in goods only, and only through its relationship with the UK. Presumably, the Government have no plans to alter the customs and excise agreement, but it would be helpful if the Minister could briefly expand on that point in relation to matters within the scope of the Bill.
The clause is largely a technical provision designed to clarify rather than change the law, and we take no issue with it.
Mr Gauke
Clause 114 makes changes to ensure that charities subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court of the Isle of Man are able to obtain the same VAT release as charities in the United Kingdom. As the hon. Lady says, it is a largely technical clause, and I am not surprised that it is uncontroversial.
The hon. Lady raises the perfectly fair issue of the future of VAT in the light of the Brexit vote. That is indeed one of the issues that we will have to wrestle with. All I can say at the moment is that it is something that we will have to consider. It will depend very much on the nature of the relationship that we have with the European Union, and of course that will be a matter for negotiation, and for decision by the next Prime Minister. Although the hon. Lady raises a fair question, and her point is well made, I fear at this point I am not able to provide any clarity for her.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 114 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 115
VAT: women’s sanitary products
Rebecca Long Bailey
Clause 115 is designed to implement the Government’s pledge to abolish the so-called tampon tax, following a long-standing campaign by women’s groups, as well as by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) and other Members from all parties. As we have heard, among those other Members was the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, who represented the Scottish National party on last year’s Finance Bill Committee, and whom I will describe as “the hon. sister” for today’s purposes.
It has taken us some time to get where we are. The EU rules have allowed countries to keep VAT exemptions and reduced rates—including zero rates—where those rates and exemptions were negotiated at the point of their joining the EU. However, there were significant restrictions on removing goods and services from VAT, which meant that under existing rules the UK had been able to reduce VAT to 5% but not remove it altogether. That is what the previous Labour Government chose to do for women’s sanitary products; following a campaign by women Labour MPs, the then Paymaster General, Dawn Primarolo, reduced the rate to the 5% minimum—but that 5% rate was left in force.
More recently, there was a grassroots campaign to remove the VAT. Prominent in that campaign was a petition, started by feminist campaigner Laura Coryton, that attracted hundreds of thousands of signatures. Similar campaigns have been run in other countries. The issue was raised in this place by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central in the Finance Bill Committee last year, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury, who then tabled an amendment to the Bill on Report. That amendment attracted considerable cross-party support, including from several Conservative Members.
The Government announced some concessions, which included finally starting negotiations on the issue at European level. Nevertheless, the matter was largely ignored during the Prime Minister’s EU renegotiation, as the Government focused on issues such as defending the interests of the City of London. The issue was finally addressed only when Ministers were staring into the face of defeat over the ultra-shambles Budget. I know that the Minister will appreciate my saying that the Chancellor became the first in history to accept not one but two amendments to his own Budget resolution: one was in my name, on green energy VAT, and the other was, of course, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury. Do not worry, I have more to say on green energy VAT later in Committee.
The amendment to the Budget resolution led to the Minister raising the issue at the European Council and it being addressed in the Council communiqué. In April, the European Commission published an action plan on VAT. That was a move further towards a single European VAT system based on the destination principle—the principle that goods and services are taxed in the country where they are consumed. The European Commission also announced a consultation with member states on proposals to allow countries to vary their reduced VAT rates on items including women’s sanitary products. One option would see the establishment of a list of goods and services on which reduced—including zero—rates could be introduced by any country. Another option would simply give member states complete freedom to select any goods they favour for reduced rates.
Of course, those steps at European level have been somewhat overtaken by the vote to leave the EU, although, as we know, European law may remain in force for some years to come. None the less, the EU VAT action plan anticipated concluding the reforms by 2018, even if we had not completed the process of leaving by that stage, so it would be helpful if the Minister could say whether the UK will now have a say on the options put forward in the EU VAT action plan and, if so, what option is favoured. I hope that he can confirm that in either case, the tampon tax would be abolished, full stop.
A pledge to abolish the tampon tax was made by the Vote Leave campaign during the referendum campaigning season. It was even suggested that that would be included in a mini-Queen’s Speech following a Brexit vote. However, as we have the Bill before us today, we can take steps without that being strictly necessary; I am sure that the Minister understands the clear, basic point.
The explanatory notes, which were of course written before the referendum vote, state :
“This clause reduces the VAT rate on the supply of women's sanitary products from 5% to zero %.”
However, I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that that is not really the case. The clause does not zero-rate women’s sanitary products; it merely provides the Treasury with enabling powers to do so, if it chooses to, at a time of its choosing. The clause leaves open the question of not only when it will do so, but whether it will so so.
That is the issue dealt with in amendment 5, which my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury tabled and which I have signed. There is no reason to leave the matter open-ended, given the possibility that Ministers will simply never get round to abolishing the tampon tax once the heat is off. The amendment would impose a hard deadline. If for any reason it could not be met—if we were still negotiating Brexit and the EU VAT action plan had not been concluded with the necessary reform—the Government would have to return the matter to the House by way of an amendment to a future Finance Bill, and explain why they had failed to follow through at that stage. A firm date will hold the Government’s feet to the fire and set a clear objective and a legislative backdrop, to prevent sliding.
Sadly, my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury was of course not chosen for this Committee. I will not press the amendment to a vote if the Minister does not accept it, but I think my hon. Friend will want to raise the issue later, depending on the Minister’s response. It is only fair to add that I suspect that the whole House will not provide the Government with a majority as solid as the one that the Minister has in Committee. I hope that he will give some sort of positive answer today, because the change was a key pledge of the Vote Leave campaign. Other pledges seem to be unravelling fast. I hope that Conservative Members who supported Brexit will at the very least feel an obligation to follow through on the pledge. Otherwise they will be judged very badly by constituents who voted in the referendum.
It would be helpful if the Minister would address another issue, although we have not at this stage tabled an amendment on it. It is about the women’s charities that received funding from the tampon tax fund. It is understandable that many people criticised the use of a tax on women to pay for support that they often needed as a result of male violence. None the less, that money was still better than nothing while the tax continued. Now that it will be abolished, what consideration has the Treasury given to ensuring that there will in the future be stable funding for the vital work of the organisations in question?
My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury previously raised another issue with the Minister, and I want to press him on that again today. That is the fact that the benefit of zero rates is not always passed on to consumers in full. It depends largely on the market. There is evidence, for example, that in France a similar tax cut was not passed on to women, but simply bolstered the profits of retailers and manufacturers. When the rate of VAT on sanitary products was reduced to 5%, the Government said they would monitor whether the benefits were passed on to consumers here. It would be interesting, if possible, to compare the margins at that time with the margins now, to see whether that happened. Can the Minister give any information about that today, or by way of a written response later, and provide the full data from any assessment?
My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury, in her usual hands-on manner, has grasped the issue directly, and has herself negotiated a deal with leading retailers: they will pass on the cut in full. I understand, however, that some smaller retailers have yet to make that commitment, and there are others in the supply chain who could also benefit, theoretically. Will the Minister join me in urging these businesses to pass on the tax cut in full and to sign up to the arrangement that my hon. Friend has reached? Will the Minister also outline what he intends to do where companies do not pass on the benefits to women? Will he speak out against them and make it clear that the Government anticipate that this tax cut will benefit female customers, not big business shareholders, and will he consider tougher sanctions if they do not pass on the benefits? For example, is there an argument for including an enabling provision for a windfall tax in this Bill? Even if there is no current intention to use such a power, it might have a useful effect if companies know that the option to use it is in the Bill. It is sometimes easier for politicians to talk quietly if they carry a big stick. The Minister is a very effective talker, even though he does not have his stick with him this week. His thoughts on this issue would be very welcome.
We note that the Scottish National party has tabled two amendments, and the arguments for them were put forward articulately today. The amendments seek to expand the definition of “women’s sanitary products” for VAT purposes. We start from a position of sympathy, and we will support any amendments on these matters that the SNP Members choose to push to a vote.
In conclusion, we will support the clause, which has come about largely as a consequence of the campaigning of Labour Members and other Members in this House. The Government are not right to say, “job done.” On the contrary, this is a case of, “We now have the tools, and we may do the job later if we feel like it”, and that really is not good enough to meet the promises made by European leaders, the Prime Minister, his Government and the winning side in the recent referendum. It is not good enough for women. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury. I look forward to hearing what he has to say on the other issues that I have raised.
Mr Gauke
Clause 115 makes provision to ensure that women’s sanitary products will be zero-rated for VAT as soon as possible after the Finance Bill receives Royal Assent. Introducing a zero rate of VAT on sanitary products has been an issue raised and supported by hon. Members from all parties in the House. The Government have listened to their views, and we accept the argument put forward by many hon. Members that we should not apply VAT, even at the current 5% reduced rate, to these products.
We have been active in pursuing this change in the European Union. In the autumn statement in 2015, the Chancellor announced that while the UK sought to change the rules for the application of VAT zero rates with the EU, £15 million a year—an amount equivalent to the revenue accrued from VAT on these products—would be spent on supporting women’s charities. So far, this fund has supported 25 charities that are making a significant impact on the lives of women and girls in the United Kingdom.
The Chancellor announced in the autumn statement that initial donations from the tampon tax fund, totalling £5 million, would support the Eve Appeal, Safelives, Women’s Aid, and the Haven. Further grants totalling £12 million were announced at the Budget this year to support a range of charities. This included £5.2 million allocated to Comic Relief and Rosa to disburse over the coming year to a range of grassroots women’s organisations across the UK.
The Prime Minister took this issue to the European Council in March and secured the agreement of all EU Heads of State, who welcomed Commission action in this area, including giving member states the option of zero-rating sanitary products. In May, ECOFIN unanimously agreed that the Commission should bring forward proposals as soon as possible to allow member states to apply a zero rate to women’s sanitary products. The next step in the process is for a proposal to be published by the Commission, which it has committed to do before the end of this year. We are working with the Commission to expedite that process, so that the proposal is brought forward as soon as possible. To ensure that there is no delay in zero-rating women’s sanitary products for VAT at the earliest opportunity, we have included this clause in this year’s Bill.
Let me turn to amendments 1 and 2, the case for which was argued today by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. She proposes that the provisions in the clause be extended to pads used to absorb breast milk and other products. The Government have taken decisive action to gain agreement across the EU on bringing forward a proposal on VAT on sanitary products, but it needs to be remembered that VAT applies to the vast majority of purchases of goods and supplies, including everyday items such as toilet paper, and it makes a significant contribution to the public finances. Extending the relief in the way that the amendment proposes is not possible under any feasible proposal from the Commission. Seeking to extend the scope of any new zero rate would introduce further complications to what are already delicate and complex discussions with the European Commission.
The Chair
I am advised that English votes for English laws does not apply in Committee. If such issues arise, they will be addressed on the Floor of the House. I hope that is satisfactory.
Rebecca Long Bailey
Clauses 116 and 121 introduce changes to the way stamp duty land tax is calculated for non-residential property transactions and transactions involving a mixture of residential and non-residential properties. I do not plan to go into a lot of detail, but there are a few questions that I want to ask the Minister. According to the policy paper, the change is expected to increase Exchequer revenue by £385 million in this financial year, rising to £590 million by 2020-21. The paper states:
“There are approximately 100,000 non-residential and mixed property transactions per year… As a result of these changes over 90% of non-residential property transactions will pay the same or less in SDLT.”
It also says:
“All non-residential freehold and lease premium transactions worth less than £1.05 million will pay the same SDLT or less compared to the current system. For leasehold…transactions, those with a NPV of up to £5 million will pay the same in SDLT as under the current system.”
Will the Minister confirm what the Government expect the impact to be on the remaining 10% who pay more in SDLT? What assessments have been carried out?
Clause 121 makes minor consequential amendments and we are quite happy to accept clauses 116 and 121. However, the Chartered Institute of Taxation has highlighted that the changes made by the clauses were introduced without consultation. I understand that the measures are transitional provision, but perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity to ease stakeholders’ concerns and identify what the consultative process entailed.
Mr Gauke
Clause 116 makes changes to the non-residential rates of stamp duty land tax. In the 2014 autumn statement the Government announced a radical reform of residential SDLT, which improved the efficiency of the tax by removing the distortive slab structure that led to large increases in SDLT when homeowners pay just £1 over a tax threshold. The changes to non-residential SDLT follow on from those successful reforms and also form part of the business tax roadmap, which sets out the Government’s plans for business taxes over the Parliament and will give businesses the clarity they need to invest with confidence. Tackling the deficit is essential for businesses, which can only grow and thrive if we have economic security.
The UK’s commercial property market was worth £787 billion in 2014, having experienced 15% growth in that year alone. As that market develops, the Government must ensure that non-residential SDLT is modern, efficient and helps the commercial property market to continue to grow. The clause improves the economic efficiency of SDLT and will provide a tax cut for the large majority of businesses purchasing commercial property. SDLT on non-residential property transactions contains two elements, depending on whether property is purchased or leased with payment upfront, or whether payment is via rental payments over time. The clause makes changes to both aspects and changes will raise just over £2.5 billion over the scorecard period.
Since 17 March, SDLT on freehold and lease premium non-residential transactions has been payable on the portion of the transaction value that falls within each tax band, rather than the tax being due at one rate on the entire value. The new structure has a nil-rate band up to £150,000; a 2% rate between £150,001 and £250,000; and a top rate of 5% above £250,000. SDLT on leasehold rent transactions has also changed to include the new 2% rate for transactions in which the NPV—net present value—of the rental payments is above £5 million. The new structure will have a nil-rate band of up to £150,000; a 1% band between £150,001 and £5 million; and a top rate of 2% for those high-value leasings with an NPV above £5 million.
As a result of the changes, over 90% of non-residential property transactions will pay the same or less in SDLT, as the hon. Lady has said. Businesses purchasing the most expensive properties have a contribution to make and the purchasers of the most expensive properties will pay more tax. However, the increase in SDLT at the top of the market is modest. The maximum tax increase from the reforms for a very expensive property is a tax rise of a single percentage point. In the context of the wider public finances and the performance of the commercial property market in recent years, I think that is reasonable.
With regard to consultation, the reforms to SDLT came into force from midnight following the Budget. That early introduction was needed to minimise any distortions in the commercial property market, including the impact on construction and development projects, that may have resulted from early announcement or consultation of a future change to non-residential SDLT. Recognising that some purchasers will have entered into legal agreements to purchase property, and to further minimise any potential market distortion, the Government are putting into place transitional rules for purchasers who have exchanged contracts but not completed their purchase before 17 March in order to ensure they do not lose out. The legislation for those changes is receiving scrutiny today. I hope that the Committee will support the clause, which will improve the economic efficiency of non-residential rates and builds on the successful changes that the Government have previously made to residential rates of SDLT.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 116 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 117
SDLT: higher rates for additional dwellings etc
Rebecca Long Bailey
As we have heard, clause 117 implements the higher rates of SDLT, or the 3% surcharge, on the purchase of additional residential properties by individuals and the purchase of any residential properties by companies. The measure has effect from 1 April 2016. The Government’s stated intention is to support home ownership and first-time buyers. The measure is expected to bring in £3.7 billion in additional revenues between this financial year and 2020-21. Clearly it is an important measure and we are broadly supportive. However, as ever, clarification on some points would be welcome.
The Government have stated that they will use some of the tax take
“to provide £60 million for communities in England where the impact of second homes is particularly acute”
and that the receipts
“will help towards doubling the affordable housing budget.”
I would like to press the Minister on those points. As I am sure he knows, Labour Members are not impressed with the present and previous Governments’ track records on housing. They have presided over six years of failure to tackle the crisis in the market. There are 201,000 fewer home-owning households than in 2010, and home ownership has fallen from 67.4% in 2009-10 to 63.6% in 2014-15. Most drastically, the number of under-35s who own a home has fallen by 20% since 2009-10.
The Government’s record on affordable housing is equally disappointing. Last year the number of affordable homes built was the smallest in more than two decades: 9,590 homes for social rent, compared with 33,180 delivered during Labour’s last year in office. This Government have failed to deliver one-for-one replacements for homes sold through the right to buy; instead, only one is being built for every eight sold. Their “affordable rent” is not affordable for many families, particularly in London, where it could swallow up to 84% of the earnings of a family on the average income and require a salary of up to £74,000. Will the Minister clarify how the doubling of the affordable housing budget will be used effectively to support home ownership across the country? Will he also identify specifically which communities in England are in line for the £60 million fund, and in what form?
The Government conducted a consultation on these measures from December 2015 to February this year, a process that the Chartered Institute of Taxation has labelled inadequate. Stakeholders are concerned that the consultation ran for only five weeks and that the draft legislation was not published until two weeks before the measure took effect on 1 April 2016. Can the Minister provide some assurance that due consultation has taken place on these big changes to the SDLT regime?
Furthermore, there have been queries about what will happen in cases of joint purchase. If a property is purchased by more than one buyer and the higher rates apply to any one of them, the surcharge will apply to the whole of the chargeable consideration. The Government say that the measure is meant to support home ownership and first-time buyers, but does this provision not bring parents assisting their children to buy a first home into the scope of the surcharge, as the Institute of Chartered Accountants has suggested?
While Labour Members welcome efforts to cool the buy-to-let market in favour of first-time buyers, the new legislation will make an already-complex tax even more complex. It would be sensible to keep the issue of joint ownership by parents and children under review, as their options for assisting each other to purchase property are significantly restricted by the new legislation. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that.
Finally, before I turn to Government amendments 29 to 42, clause 117(16)(1) provides that ownership of a dwelling outside the UK shall be taken into account in deciding whether the surcharge applies to the purchase of a dwelling in the UK. The Chartered Institute of Taxation highlighted some practical difficulties with determining ownership of a property in certain jurisdictions, and whether it is a main residence. I am therefore concerned about compliance. As we know, there is a large problem in the UK property market, especially in London, where non-UK nationals buying property are pushing up house prices. Will the Minister therefore confirm what measures are in place to ensure compliance by overseas property owners?
I note that Government amendments 29 to 39 take action to address the tax treatment of dwellings with annexes or granny flats, as discussed. The changes mean that the surcharge will not be applicable when a granny flat is the only reason the higher rate would apply. I am aware of what stakeholders say and of wider reports in the media about the issue, and I am pleased that the Government have taken steps to address it.
Government amendment 40 clarifies the situation for dwellings purchased under alternative finance arrangements, so that where the surcharge is applicable the higher rates apply to the person occupying the property, not to the financial institution. Again, that is sensible, and it mirrors the situation with annual tax on enveloped dwelling. Finally, Government amendments 41 and 42, according to the explanatory note, will give the Treasury powers to change the rules on what is a higher rates transaction for the purpose of removing transactions from the higher rates.
To conclude, we support all the measures in this group, although we do have some concerns, which I have highlighted. I hope that the Minister will provide assurance.
Mr Gauke
The hon. Lady made a number of points about housing that we could spend a long time debating. I will try to resist that temptation, but let me make one point: in the previous Parliament, more council homes were built than in the whole period of the previous two Labour Governments. We are committed to delivering a large number of affordable homes. Annual housing starts are at an eight-year high, and last year housing completions rose by more than 10%. A £1 billion loan fund will provide funds to small and medium-sized enterprises, such as small house builders. I could say more, but I will resist the temptation.
A number of technical points were made about the measures covered by this group. First, there was a point about how we deal with joint purchasers. We were asked why we do not use an apportionment approach for joint purchasers. A move to an apportionment system would increase complexity in the tax system and increase the risk of non-compliance. The Government’s approach is simpler than an apportionment system and has been settled on after careful consideration. Where a property is purchased jointly, the higher rates will apply if the property is an additional property of one or more purchasers.
As to whether that is unfair to parents trying to help their children on to the property ladder, I do not think so. Parents may help their children on to the property ladder without being subject to the higher rates of SDLT—for example, a parent can offer direct financial support, or become the guarantor of the child’s mortgage—but if the parent purchases a property jointly with the child, the transaction may be subject to the higher rate if the purchase is an additional property for the parent. Offering exemption for properties purchased jointly with children would add complexity to the tax system, reduce revenue and increase compliance risks.
On the impact on the buy-to-let market, the policy is not expected to have an effect on rents. SDLT will be paid only once, when the property is purchased. I was asked why the consultation period was short. Let me reassure the Committee that the consultation process was full and open, and that respondents’ views were taken into account. I accept that the consultation period was shorter than 12 weeks, but that was so that we could properly analyse the responses in time for the final policy design to be confirmed, and for the policy to be in force, by 1 April. We recognise the effects on the property market of pre-announcing changes to SDLT rules, so there was a careful balance to be struck between providing stakeholders with the chance to have their say and not prolonging market disruption.
On treating homes abroad in the same way as homes in the UK, SDLT is a self-assessed tax, and those making returns need to complete returns honestly. It would be unfair to treat those with first homes abroad more beneficially than those with first homes in the UK. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs monitors compliance and will check returns carefully.
The Department for Communities and Local Government is consulting on how the £60 million will be spent in communities with a large number of second homes. I am not sure that there is much more I can say on that at this point. It is a matter DCLG is leading on. I hope that those points are helpful to the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles and the Committee. I hope the clause and the amendments to it will stand part of the Bill.
Amendment 29 agreed to.
Amendments made: 30, in clause 117, page 167, line 21, at end insert
“meet conditions A, B and C”
Amendment 31, in clause 117, page 167, line 22, leave out
“Condition A is that the portion”
and insert
“A purchased dwelling meets condition A if the amount”
Amendment 32, in clause 117, page 167, line 25, leave out “Condition B is that” and insert
“A purchased dwelling meets condition B if”
Amendment 33, in clause 117, page 167, line 30, at end insert—
‘(4) A purchased dwelling meets condition C if it is not subsidiary to any of the other purchased dwellings.
(5) One of the purchased dwellings (“dwelling A”) is subsidiary to another of the purchased dwellings (“dwelling B”) if—
(a) dwelling A is situated within the grounds of, or within the same building as, dwelling B, and
(b) the amount of the chargeable consideration for the transaction which is attributable on a just and reasonable basis to dwelling B is equal to, or greater than, two thirds of the amount of the chargeable consideration for the transaction which is attributable on a just and reasonable basis to the following combined—
(i) dwelling A,
(ii) dwelling B, and
(iii) each of the other purchased dwellings (if any) which are situated within the grounds of, or within the same building as, dwelling B.”
Amendment 34, in clause 117, page 167, line 36, leave out from beginning to “one” and insert “only”.
Amendment 35, in clause 117, page 167, line 37, after “dwellings” insert
“meets conditions A, B and C”.
Amendment 36, in clause 117, page 167, line 38, leave out from “dwelling” to “is” in line 39 and insert “which meets those conditions”.
Amendment 37, in clause 117, page 167, line 48, at end insert—
‘( ) Sub-paragraphs (2) to (5) of paragraph 5 apply for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(c) of this paragraph as they apply for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(c) of that paragraph.”
Amendment 38, in clause 117, page 168, line 9, leave out from beginning to “at”.
Amendment 39, in clause 117, page 168, line 10, at end insert
“meets conditions A and B.
‘( ) Sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of paragraph 5 apply for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(c) of this paragraph as they apply for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(c) of that paragraph.”
Amendment 40, in clause 117, page 171, line 8, at end insert—
“Alternative finance arrangements
14A (1) This paragraph applies in relation to a chargeable transaction which is the first transaction under an alternative finance arrangement entered into between a person and a financial institution.
(2) The person (rather than the institution) is to be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as the purchaser in relation to the transaction.
(3) In this paragraph—
“alternative finance arrangement” means an arrangement of a kind mentioned in section 71A(1) or 73(1);
“financial institution” has the meaning it has in those sections (see section 73BA);
“first transaction”, in relation to an alternative finance arrangement, has the meaning given by section 71A(1)(a) or (as the case may be) section 73(1)(a)(i).”
Amendment 41, in clause 117, page 173, line 23, at end insert—
“Power to modify this Schedule
18 (1) The Treasury may by regulations amend or otherwise modify this Schedule for the purpose of preventing certain chargeable transactions from being higher rates transactions for the purposes of paragraph 1.
(2) The provision which may be included in regulations under this paragraph by reason of section 114(6)(c) includes incidental or consequential provision which may cause a chargeable transaction to be a higher rates transaction for the purposes of paragraph 1.”
Amendment 42, in clause 117, page 174, line 7, at end insert—
‘( ) Paragraph 14A of Schedule 4ZA to FA 2003 does not apply in relation to a land transaction of which the effective date is, or is before, the date on which this Act is passed if the effect of its application would be that the transaction is a higher rates transaction for the purposes of paragraph 1 of that Schedule.”—(Mr Gauke.)
Clause 117, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 118
SDLT higher rate: land purchased for commercial use
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 16 be the Sixteenth schedule to the Bill.
Rebecca Long Bailey
This clause and schedule introduce a relief from SDLT for certain property funds and co-ownership schemes. The relief aims to remove barriers to the use of particular ways of investing in property. The transfer of property into property authorised investment funds and co-ownership authorised contractual schemes is currently subject to stamp duty.
As set out in the HMRC policy paper, this clause and schedule introduce a 100% relief from stamp duty land tax for the initial transfer, or seeding, of properties into an authorised PAIF or COACS. The measure also introduces changes to the SDLT treatment of COACSs, so that there will not be a SDLT charge on transactions in units.
In the 2014 Budget, the Government announced that they would consult on the SDLT treatment of the seeding of property authorised investment funds and the wider SDLT treatment of co-ownership authorised contractual schemes. That was in reaction to stakeholder suggestions that relieving stamp duty
“in certain circumstances could encourage more property funds to set up in the UK and facilitate greater collective investment in UK property.”
The Government therefore carried out a consultation in July 2014, to seek views on the case for action on design features for a potential seeding relief and targeted stamp duty rules for co-ownership authorised contractual schemes. Subsequently, in the 2014 autumn statement, it was announced that those changes would be made subject to the resolution of potential avoidance issues.
The explanatory note to the clause states:
“The legislation includes anti-avoidance measures to limit the application of the relief to authorised funds with a broad base of investors and a sizeable portfolio of seeded properties. This aims to minimise SDLT avoidance via the ‘enveloping’ of properties within such funds.”
We do not seek to divide the Committee on this measure, but I would like the Minister to expand on that point. Can he explain what safeguards are in place to prevent the avoidance of stamp duty through this relief? What is the Treasury’s estimate of the risk of avoidance through this relief? Are there any plans in place to review the relief after a given time to assess whether the safeguards are working?
According to HMRC’s policy paper, this measure is expected to cost £10 million in this financial year, rising to £15 million next year, and then dropping to £5 million by 2019-20. The expected impact is minimal, other than on
“life and pension companies, charities and other tax exempt investors that invest in property. They will all benefit as a result of SDLT cost reductions which may subsequently be passed on to beneficiaries of these organisations.”
However, accountants Smith & Williamson noted that the measure is likely to affect only substantial property portfolios. It stated:
“it will be interesting to see whether it will be extended to other tax-favoured property investment vehicles such as real estate investment trusts”.
Do the Government have any plans to extend the relief in any way?
We do not oppose this clause and schedule, but I hope the Minister can assure me that this new relief will not be used as a tax-avoidance scam, and that the Government have taken all possible action to ensure that it will not be.
Mr Gauke
As we have heard, clause 122 makes changes to ensure that the tax system supports UK competitiveness and makes the UK a more attractive location for fund management and domicile. The UK investment management industry is an important and successful part of the economy. It is a significant employer that accounts for 1% of GDP and is a key part of the wider financial services sector.
Property funds are an important part of the industry, so it is right that they are taxed fairly and appropriately, and in a way that supports the aim of the Government’s investment management strategy. The Government have received many representations from the industry saying that SDLT rules do not work for two types of property funds: property authorised investment funds and co-ownership authorised contractual schemes.
Under current rules, an SDLT liability can arise even when economic ownership of properties has not changed and properties have not been bought or sold. That discourages the use of funds and is a barrier to UK competitiveness in this important area. The changes made by clause 122 and schedule 16 will ensure that property authorised investment funds and co-ownership authorised contractual schemes are treated fairly in the SDLT system.
A SDLT relief for property that is transferred into a new fund will be introduced where the underlying property has not changed economic ownership, and there will not be a SDLT charge when investors transfer units in a co-authorised contractual scheme. Those funds will continue to pay the appropriate levels of SDLT when purchasing property, but these changes will mean that SDLT will not be due when the underlying economic ownership of the property has not changed. That is an appropriate and fair outcome, costing £40 million over the scorecard period.
Under the previous Government, an SDLT exemption for the initial transfer of property to a unit trust scheme was repealed due to widespread tax avoidance and abuse of the rules. This Government are committed to addressing that kind of tax avoidance, and there are a number of crucial safeguards as part of the rules. For example, the property portfolio must be of a certain size and value to qualify for this relief. If units in the fund are sold to third-party investors within a three-year period, the SDLT relieved will be paid back to the Exchequer.
Those safeguards were not in place for the previous exemption for unit trusts and will minimise any potential tax avoidance issues. Of course, all taxes are kept under review in the normal way and the costings for this take into account the risk of avoidance.
An argument is sometimes made for extending such a measure to real estate investment trusts. Our view was that there was a clear benefit to the investment management industry and the wider economy from making these changes for the two types of funds that benefit. Evidence that similar effects would occur if the changes were extended to REITs has not yet been presented but, again, we keep all taxes under review.
In summary, the clause improves UK competitiveness in an important industry, encourages property funds to be managed and domiciled in the UK and to invest in UK property assets, and makes the UK tax system fairer. I hope that this clause and schedule can stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 122 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 16 agreed to.
Clauses 123 to 125 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.— (Mel Stride.)
Finance Bill (Sixth sitting)
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
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 CO2. 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.]
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.
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.
Finance Bill (Fourth sitting)
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I covered most of the points relating to this clause when discussing previous clauses. I am concerned that it is another example of complex arrangements being created for the purpose of, among other things, avoiding liability to pay corporation tax. Will the Minister confirm what specific activity has prompted these proposals?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
It is a pleasure to welcome you back to the Chair, Mr Howarth. Let me say a word or two about the clause in response to the hon. Lady’s question.
Clause 64 makes changes to prevent tax avoidance by ensuring that tax is chargeable upon any consideration received in return for agreeing to take over tax-deductible lease payments. Leasing of plant and machinery plays an important role in UK business by providing a means of access to assets for use in commercial activities. There may be a number of different reasons for choosing to lease plant and machinery—for example, where the assets are required for only a relatively short period, where a lease meets the requirements of the business’s cash flows, where the business does not have the funds to buy the asset outright or where the asset is of a type typically leased rather than bought.
The person who leases plant and machinery—the lessee—for use in their business is entitled to tax deductions for the rents payable under the lease. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has become aware of arrangements relating to the transfer of a lessee position in an existing lease. In those arrangements, the existing lessee transfers its right to use the leased plant or machinery, together with the obligation to make the lease payments, to another person. The new lessee will use the plant or machinery in its business and claim tax deductions for the lease rental payments.
However, the arrangements for transfer also involve the new lessee or a connected person receiving a consideration in return for the new lessee agreeing to take over from the existing lessee. That is done in such a way that there is no charge for tax on that consideration. The new lessee is able to get tax deductions for rental payments, some or all of which are funded by the non-taxable consideration received. That is an unfair outcome, and in a number of examples seen by HMRC it is clearly part of a tax avoidance scheme.
It is right that where a person meets tax-deductible payments not from their own resources but out of an otherwise non-taxable consideration received for agreeing to take over those payments, that consideration should be taxed in full. The changes made by the clause will ensure that where a person takes over a lessee under an existing lease, obtains tax deductions for payments under that lease and, in return, receives a consideration, such consideration is chargeable for tax as income.
The changes proposed will ensure a fair outcome for tax purposes for such arrangements. No longer will it be possible for tax-deductible lease payments to be funded by untaxed considerations received for the transfer of responsibility to make those payments. The expected yield to the Exchequer over the scorecard period from the changes is £120 million. I therefore hope the clause will stand part of the Bill as a way of preventing businesses from gaining an unwarranted tax advantage.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 64 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 82
Inheritance tax: increased nil-rate band
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Gauke
Clause 82 and schedule 15 ensure that the residence nil-rate band for inheritance tax will continue to be available when an individual downsizes or ceases to own a home. The clause builds on the provisions in the Finance Act 2015, which introduced a new residence nil-rate band, by creating an effective inheritance tax threshold of up to £1 million for many married couples and civil partners by the end of the Parliament, making it easier for most families to pass on the family home to their children and grandchildren without the burden of inheritance tax.
The combined effect of this package will almost halve the number of estates expected to face an inheritance tax bill in future. The Office for Budget Responsibility now forecasts that 33,000 estates will be liable for inheritance tax in 2020-21. As a result of this package, 26,000 estates will be taken out of inheritance tax altogether and 18,000 will pay less.
We recognise that people’s circumstances change as they get older and that they may want to downsize or may have to sell their property. We do not want the residence nil-rate band to act as a disincentive for people thinking about making such changes. That is why we announced in the summer Budget that anyone who downsizes or ceases to own a home on or after 8 July 2015 will still be able to benefit from the new residence allowance. Clause 82 and schedule 15 allow an estate to qualify for all or part of the residence nil-rate band that would otherwise be lost as a result of the downsizing move or disposal of the residence.
The extra residence nil-rate band or downsizing edition will only be available for one former residence that the deceased lived in. Where more than one property might qualify, executors of an estate will be able to nominate which former residence should qualify. The approach reduces complexity and ensures flexibility in the system.
The Government have tabled seven amendments to schedule 15 to ensure that the legislation works as intended in certain situations that are not currently covered by the downsizing provisions. Amendment 15 caters for situations in which an individual had more than one interest in a former residence, to ensure that they are not disadvantaged compared with those who owned the entire former residence outright. Amendment 16 clarifies the meaning of disposal in situations where an individual gave away a former residence but continued to live in it. Amendment 19 ensures that where an estate is held in a trust for the benefit of a person during their lifetime, a disposal of that former residence by the trustees would also qualify for the residence nil-rate band.
Amendments 13, 14, 17 and 18 make minor consequential changes to take into account the other amendments. Clause 82 and schedule 15 will help to deliver the Government’s commitment to take the ordinary family home out of inheritance tax by ensuring that people are not disadvantaged if they move into smaller homes or into care. That commitment was made in our manifesto and I am pleased to deliver it fully with this clause.
Rebecca Long Bailey
As we have heard from the Minister, clause 82 and schedule 15 provide that the inheritance tax transferrable main residence nil-rate band will apply to an estate even when somebody downsizes. As the Tax Journal’s commentary on the Bill concisely explains, schedule 15 in particular contains provisions to ensure that
“estates will continue to benefit from the new residence nil rate band even where individuals have downsized or sold their property, subject to certain conditions. The residence nil-rate band is an additional transferable nil rate band which is available for transfers of residential property to direct descendants on death. The additional relief will be available from 6 April 2017 and the relief for downsizing or disposals will apply for deaths after that date where the disposal occurred on or after 8 July 2015.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and I tabled amendments to leave out clause 82 and schedule 15 today—we will therefore oppose the clause—although they were not selected for debate.
The Government’s objective seems to be that
“individuals may wish to downsize to a smaller and often less valuable property later in life. Others may have to sell their home for a variety of reasons, for example, because they need to go into residential care. This may mean that they would lose some, or all, of the benefit of the available RNRB. However, the government intends that the new RNRB should not be introduced in such a way as to disincentivise an individual from downsizing or selling their property.”
If we go back a couple of steps, at summer Budget 2015 the Government announced that there would be an additional nil-rate band for transfers on death of the main resident to a direct descendant set at £100,000 and subject to a taper for an estate with a net value of more than £2 million. The band will be withdrawn by £1 for every £2 over the threshold. During the passage of the Finance Act 2015, which introduced the additional nil-rate band, the Opposition spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), stated:
“We have been clear that we believe that the focus of tax cuts should be on helping working people on middle and low incomes and on tackling tax avoidance…the Treasury has admitted that 90% of households will not benefit from the Government’s inheritance tax policy, so we should be clear about the part of society we are talking about.”
She went on:
“The priority for the Government, we believe, should be helping the majority of families and first-time buyers struggling to get a home of their own. That is why Labour voted against the Government’s inheritance tax proposals in the July Budget debate. The Treasury estimates that the changes to inheritance tax will cost the Exchequer £940 million by 2020-21—nearly £1 billion.”––[Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 17 September 2015; c. 56.]
I echo those comments in the light of the measure today. We simply do not believe that expanding the conditions in which inheritance tax is not payable should be a priority for the Government. As my hon. Friend said at that time, this measure will cost nearly £1 billion by 2020-21. That is a vast amount of money that could be better spent supporting those on middle and low incomes who are struggling to get by.
As with so many measures in the Bill, the Government are prioritising the wrong people, with tax giveaways for the wealthy, such as this measure, and cuts to capital gains tax, at a time when they were considering taking billions away from working people through cuts to tax credits and disability payments. Not only do we disagree with the principle of this tax giveaway; we are also concerned that the legislation is badly drafted. A similar outcome could be achieved through a simpler mechanism. The Chartered Institute of Taxation has said:
“It appears to us that the legislation in Schedule 15 as currently drafted is deficient in one particular respect in that no provision has been made for downsizing when the home is held as a trust interest (for example, and especially, an Immediate Post-Death Interest (“IPDI”)). The typical scenario would be that the home (solely owned by husband) was left on a life interest basis to his widow, with remainder over to his children. The widow goes into care and the trustees wish to sell the property. An IPDI is becoming increasingly common to safeguard the interests of children from a first marriage when their parent enters into a second.”
Will the Minister clarify what will happen in that instance?
I will touch briefly on Government amendments 13 to 19, which according to the Minister’s helpful letter of 30 June make a number of technical amendments to ensure that the legislation operates as intended in a limited number of specific circumstances that are not currently covered by the downsizing provisions. I am glad that the Government are taking steps to improve the legislation, but I cannot see how the amendments address the concerns outlined by the Chartered Institute of Taxation.
The Opposition do not feel that these measures, which expand the number of situations in which inheritance tax is not due, are a priority, given the apparent funding constraints we often hear about from the Government. We will therefore oppose clause 82 and schedule 15.
Rebecca Long Bailey
The Minister will be pleased to hear that I do not have many comments on this clause, which provides that inheritance tax will not be charged if a person leaves unused funds in a pension drawdown fund when they die. In April 2015, the Government introduced changes to pension tax rules allowing people to access their pension funds flexibly from the age of 55. That flexibility, and an increase in drawdown arrangements, means that the inheritance tax charge will potentially apply to more people. The changes, which the Opposition supported at the time, meant that pensioners could access as much of their pension pots as they wanted, without having to buy an annuity. That meant, however, that if people became entitled to the funds but did not actually draw on them before death, the money would be subject to inheritance tax at the usual rate. According to the explanatory notes, that was not the original policy intention, so the clause has been introduced to correct things. The Opposition supported the changes to pension tax rules so will not be opposing the clause.
Mr Gauke
As we have heard, clause 83 makes changes to ensure that when an individual dies, unused funds in a drawdown pension are not treated as part of their estate for inheritance tax purposes. Without the clause, a small number of pensions would be liable for inheritance tax in some circumstances, which was not our intention.
As the Committee will be aware, funds that remain in a pension scheme do not traditionally form part of a deceased’s estate and are generally exempt from inheritance tax. Nevertheless, under the current tax rules, in a small number of circumstances undrawn pension funds are unintentionally caught. For example, if an individual has designated funds for pension drawdown and then passes away without having drawn down all those funds, an inheritance tax charge may arise.
The Government introduced changes to the pensions tax rules from April 2015 that allowed more people to flexibly access their pension funds from age 55. That flexibility means that the inheritance tax charge might apply to more people who pass away leaving undrawn funds in their pension scheme. It was not intended that an IHT charge should arise in such circumstances; the clause ensures that it will not do so. It changes the existing rules so that an inheritance tax charge will not arise when a person has unused funds remaining in their drawdown pension when they die.
The changes will be backdated and will apply for deaths on or after 6 April 2011, so that they include any charges that could arise from the time when the general rule ceased to apply. The minor changes made by the clause will help to maintain the integrity and consistency of the pensions system while supporting those who have worked hard and saved responsibly throughout their lives. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 83 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 84
Inheritance tax: victims of persecution during Second World War era
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Rebecca Long Bailey
The Minister has given us an articulate and detailed summary of how the clauses work in practice, so I will not go over too much of that again. I briefly note that the provisions make technical changes to the tax treatment of gifts or sales of property to public museums and galleries and objects of national scientific, historic or artistic interest respectively.
Clause 85 makes technical changes to support the exemption from inheritance tax of gifts or sales of property to public museums and galleries. It is necessary, as the Minister said, because recent changes in local authorities have led museum collections to be placed in charitable trusts. Those trusts do not presently fall within schedule 3 to the Inheritance Tax Act 1984, which describes the bodies that attract inheritance tax and capital gains tax relief. The clause simply rectifies that and moves the power to designate schedule 3 bodies from HMRC to HM Treasury. We have no issue with this technical clause, but I am interested to know what the justification was for moving the power to add bodies to schedule 3 from HMRC to HM Treasury. As a general question, what assessment was made in the long term of the efficacy of local authorities in managing museums and galleries? The Minister might want to refer that question to another Department and get back to me in writing.
Clause 86 puts a stop to using existing law to pay inheritance tax at a lower rate than estate duty. Estate duty was replaced in 1975 by capital transfer tax, which was replaced by inheritance tax in 1984. However, legacy estate duty legislative provisions still remain in force in relation to exemptions given pre-March 1975. Estate duty can be levied at up to 80%, whereas inheritance tax is currently at 40%. The clause stops individuals using a gap in legislation to claim conditional exemption solely to facilitate a later sale of 40% instead of up to 80%.
There is also provision for HMRC to be able to raise a charge when the owner loses an estate duty exempt object. That leads me nicely on to Government amendments 122 to 126, which make technical changes to ensure that the legislation operates as intended. Amendment 122 clarifies the rules around HMRC’s ability to raise a charge for duty on the loss of an item, so that it will raise only a single charge rather than a dual one. Amendments 123 and 124 ensure that the legislation works in specific circumstances, as intended, and amendments 125 and 126 simply make minor consequential changes. We are more than happy to support these clauses and Government amendments.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 85 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 86
Estate duty: objects of national, scientific, historic or artistic interest
Amendments made: 122, in clause 86, page 143, line 6, after “as if”, insert
“—
(a) after subsection (3) there were inserted—
“(3A) But where the value of any objects is chargeable with estate duty under subsection (2A) of the said section forty (loss of objects), no estate duty shall be chargeable under this section on that value.”; and
(b) ” .
Amendment 123, in clause 86, page 144, line 2, at end insert—
‘(5A) In section 35 of IHTA 1984 (conditional exemption on death before 7th April 1976), in subsection (2), for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute—
“(a) tax shall be chargeable under section 32 or 32A (as the case may be), or
(b) tax shall be chargeable under Schedule 5,
as the Board may elect.””
Amendment 124, in clause 86, page 144, line 9, at end insert
“, and
(b) in sub-paragraph (4), after “40(2)” insert “or (2A)”.”
Amendment 125, in clause 86, page 144, line 10, leave out “Subsection (6) has” and insert “Subsections (5A) and (6) have”.
Amendment 126, in clause 86, page 144, line 11, after “referred to in”, insert “section 35(2) of or”— (Mr Gauke.)
Clause 86, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 87
Apprenticeship levy
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 22 to 24.
Clauses 88 and 89 stand part.
Government amendments 25 and 26.
Clause 90 stand part.
Government amendment 27.
Clauses 91 to 108 stand part.
Government amendment 28.
Clauses 109 and 110 stand part.
New clause 2—Review of the Apprenticeship Levy—
‘The provisions of this Act relating to the Apprenticeship Levy shall not come into force until the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid before Parliament a report on how the levy will be implemented, including but not limited to information on how equitable treatment of the different parts of the UK will be assured in its implementation.’
Kirsty Blackman
I understand that guidance on the apprenticeship levy has been released. The information I was able to find online said that further guidance on things such as provisional bands would be released in June 2016, but I cannot find any. Perhaps it is just that I have been unable to find it, but it would be useful if that guidance was provided.
I draw attention to the issue with employee-owned companies. I was approached by such a company that pays its employees their share of the profits through PAYE, so that share of the profits will be subject to the apprenticeship levy. Had the company been set up to pay dividends to shareholders, it would not have to pay the levy. The staff there have come to me with a specific issue that is unique to them, because they would not have to pay the levy if their company was structured differently. Will the Minister comment on such employee-owned companies?
Rebecca Long Bailey
As we have heard, this substantial group of clauses introduces the apprenticeship levy that was announced in the summer Budget and autumn statement in 2015. I shall address my remarks to clauses 87 to 110 as a group, touching on new clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, and Government amendments 22 to 28.
The apprenticeship levy was announced in 2015 and will come into force in April 2017 as part of the Government’s commitment to reaching 3 million apprenticeships by 2020. The levy will be charged on large employers with annual pay bills in excess of £3 million. According to the HMRC policy paper, that means that less than 2% of employers will pay the levy. It will be charged at 0.5% of an employer’s pay bill through PAYE. Each employer will receive one annual allowance of £15,000 to offset against its levy payment. Employers operating multiple payrolls will be able to claim only one allowance. As we have heard, levy funds will be retained as electronic vouchers in a digital apprenticeship service account. The employer can spend these vouchers on training and end-point assessment from accredited apprenticeship providers, but not on associated costs such as administration of apprenticeships, pay or allowances.
According to the Government’s costings, the levy is expected to raise £2.7 billion in its first financial year, rising to just over £3 billion by 2020-21. HMRC’s policy paper states specifically:
“It is expected that the levy will support productivity growth through the increase in training. It may have a near-term impact in reducing earnings growth, although by supporting increased productivity, it is expected that the levy will lead to increased profitability for businesses, and increased wages over the long-term.”
The paper also assesses the impact on business, stating:
“For employers paying the levy, the measure is expected to have some impact on administration costs and the impact will vary by employer, depending on the size of their pay bill. The policy intention is that they will calculate and pay the levy on a monthly basis. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) will engage with employers to discuss and assess the impacts on them.”
Opposition Members are certainly happy to support the introduction of the apprenticeship levy, but we have some concerns that we would like the Minister to provide some reassurances on.
Business representatives have broadly welcomed the levy as a commitment to delivering increased apprenticeship places. However, they have widely expressed concern at the short timeframe for implementation, the lack of guidance to date ahead of the introduction and the limitations that the proposals place on expenditure. Indeed, the Confederation of British Industry has called for a “realistic lead-in time” and for
“taking the time to get this right”,
while EEF, the Manufacturers Organisation, has specifically called for a delay to the levy’s introduction full stop.
In addition, the high target of 3 million apprenticeship starters by 2020 has caused concern that there could be a race to the bottom in terms of the quality of apprenticeships. Mark Beatson, chief economist at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, has said:
“We’d argue that the three million target should not be sacrosanct, and that quantity should not trump quality.”
Can the Minister therefore outline what regulatory framework or safeguards are in place to ensure that the quality of apprenticeships is up to scratch?
The Charity Finance Group is particularly concerned that the charitable sector does not have highly developed human resources departments or accredited apprenticeship training schemes. The sector remains reliant on volunteers whose expenses cannot be remunerated via the apprenticeship levy. The CFG is also concerned that significant charity resources are tied up in public sector contracts or that charitable donors will seek confirmation that their donations will fund a charity’s specific cause.
Indeed, public sector employers themselves have expressed concern that, first, the levy is being introduced at a time of severe funding cuts and, secondly, that it is accompanied by a new requirement in the sector to ensure that 2.3% of workers are apprentices. The Local Government Association has urged that local authorities be exempted from payment but given authority to oversee administration of levy funds locally. Can the Minister confirm that the Government have considered that approach?
There may be scope for local authorities to co-ordinate. For instance, councils could take up a commissioning role in the Digital Apprenticeship Service, or unallocated levy funding could be reallocated to contributing areas and commissioned locally rather than being retained centrally.
Another issue that I would like the Minister to shine some light on today is agency workers and large recruitment agencies. In particular, the largest recruitment agencies have expressed concern to me that they will be liable to make large levy payments for placing employees in other companies, including for periods that would not qualify for a quality apprenticeship—over 12 months.
The Recruitment and Employment Confederation has raised concerns that large recruitment agencies will have to pay the levy on their pay bill when they place employees in temporary employment in different workplaces, so that those employees are paid by the agency but not working for it. Indeed, the TUC has expressed concern that agency contracts may be used by employers to lower their PAYE bill and reduce their levy requirement. Opposition Members are really concerned about that, so can the Minister say what steps are in place to ensure that it does not happen?
Finally, I have some concerns about how the levy will work under a devolved Administration, and I think that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath shares those concerns, as do his colleagues. That is reflected in new clause 2, where they have requested a review addressing how equitable treatment of the different parts of the UK will be assured in its implementation. Throughout their submissions they have asked some very pertinent questions, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses to them.
The levy will be UK-wide, so employers operating across the devolved nations will pay their contribution based on all their UK employees, irrespective of where they live or work. However, the vouchers that levy-paying employers will be allocated—they can spend them on apprenticeship training—will be based only on the portion of the levy that they pay on the pay bill for their English employees. Funds available for training in devolved Administrations are provided through the block grant, and allocation will be decided upon by the Administration.
There appears to be very little guidance on how the apprenticeship levy will work in the devolved Administrations, so I would be grateful if the Minister could provide more detail today. For example, will the funds levied from a company’s UK operations based in devolved nations be identifiable in the grants made to devolved Administrations? We will support new clause 2 if it is pushed to a vote today.
I turn now to Government amendments 22 to 28, which relate to clauses 88, 90, 91 and 109. Clause 90, as drafted, states that where there is an aggregate pay bill of a group of connected companies that will qualify to pay the apprenticeship levy and each would be entitled to a levy allowance, only one will in fact be entitled to the allowance. The connected companies must nominate which company will qualify. Similarly, clause 91 sets out that at the beginning of the tax year, where two or more qualified charities are connected with one another, only one will be entitled to the levy allowance to be offset against the apprenticeship levy.
Government amendments to those two clauses allow companies and charities that are connected for the purposes of the apprenticeship levy to share their annual levy allowance of £15,000 between them, instead of only one company or charity being entitled to the allowance. There is also a consequential amendment to clause 88, which, according to the Minister’s letter,
“allows for the levy allowance not being the full £15,000, if a group of connected employers choose to split it under sections 90 or 91.”
The Government have stated that these changes are in response to representations they have received, and the Opposition are also aware of concerns from stakeholders about the legislation as currently drafted. We therefore fully support these amendments.
Amendments 26 and 28 are technical amendments that clarify that the definition of a company in clause 90 applies to the whole of part 6 of the Bill relating to the apprenticeship levy. Again, we are happy to support these Government amendments.
In conclusion, the Opposition have long called for Government action to drive growth in productivity. That is the underlying problem that the Chancellor has failed to deal with time and again. Supporting apprenticeships is certainly an important factor in doing so, and we are therefore supportive of these measures in the Bill. However, we have some serious concerns about the machinery of the specific clauses, as I have outlined, and I hope that the Minister can address them in his response.
Mr Gauke
Let me see if I can address the points that have been raised in the debate. It has been argued that business organisations are calling for a delay in implementation. We recognise that employers have concerns about the development and planned implementation of the levy, but we urgently need to address the skills shortage in our economy and improve the quality of vocational training, which employers are calling for. We are holding regular working groups with various employers and employer groups in order to keep them updated on progress and the timing of announcements, and we will shortly be publishing draft funding rates and rules to provide further information to help them plan for the introduction of the levy. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North is not wrong: there is still further information that needs to be published. That information will be published shortly.
Our focus is on ensuring that the levy works for businesses of all sizes as they adapt and seize opportunities in the coming months. In April we set out how the operational model for the apprenticeship levy and the new digital apprenticeship service will work, and how the funding of apprenticeship training will change. We continue to work with employers to design the apprenticeship levy around their needs, and we will publish further details of the draft rates and rules shortly.
Picking up on the point raised by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth about Brompton Bikes and the particular concern about niche areas such as braziers, a key part of reform to apprenticeships is the trailblazer programme, which invites employers to create their own standards. It needs 10 employers, but in exceptional cases the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is happy to accept smaller, more niche specialisms, such as braziers. I encourage all employers in such circumstances to enter into dialogue with BIS.