Finance Bill (Fifth sitting)
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(8 years, 7 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 (Third sitting)
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Will this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 8 be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 51 stand part.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
Who knows what adventures the Finance Bill will take us on today? Hopefully the sittings will be a little more sedate than last week’s.
I will first address clause 50 and schedule 8, and then move on to clause 51 relating to television and video games tax relief. Clause 50 brings in schedule 8, which introduces a new relief for orchestral concerts, provides for consequential amendments to other parts of taxes Acts as a result, and arranges for the commencement of the relief. First announced in the autumn of 2014, the new tax relief for orchestral production will allow qualifying companies engaged in the production of concerts to claim an additional deduction in computing their taxable profits and, where that additional deduction results in a loss, to surrender the losses for a payable tax credit. The additional deduction and the payable credit are calculated on the basis of European Economic Area core expenditure, up to a maximum of 80% of the total core expenditure by the qualifying company. The additional deduction is 100% of qualifying core expenditure, and the payable tax credit is 25% of losses surrendered.
The credit is based on the company’s qualifying expenditure on the production of a qualifying orchestral concert. The expenditure must be on activities directly involved in producing a concert, such as rehearsal costs. Qualifying expenditure will not include indirect costs, such as financing, marketing and accountancy and legal fees, and at least 25% of the qualifying expenditure must be on goods or services that are provided from within the EEA. Concerts that have among their main purposes the advertising of goods and services or the making of a recording, or that include a competition, will not qualify for relief.
The stated objective of the measure is to support the creative sector and sustainably promote British culture. I certainly back that approach, not least because the BBC Philharmonic orchestra is based in my constituency and continues to attract many like-minded orchestral organisations to my city. On the machinery of the calculations, however, as the deduction of credit is calculated on the basis of EEA core expenditure, what assessment has the Minister made of amendments that might need to be made to the clause as a result of Britain’s exit from the EU?
I am pleased that the Government took the time to consult on the measure, and I note that the summary of responses published in March 2015 indicates that the industry welcomed the introduction of the relief. I am also pleased that the Government took heed of the Opposition’s concerns about the initial proposal exempting brass bands from the relief, effectively introducing a brass band tax, and that the Government subsequently included brass bands in the relevant definition in March 2015. The draft Bill and a policy paper were published in December 2015, and the Government did not make any substantive changes after the technical consultation exercise, so I am confident that the legislation will do what it says on the tin.
The measure is expected to cost the Exchequer £5 million in the financial year 2016-17 and £10 million every financial year thereafter until 2019-20. The Opposition agree with the principle of supporting the UK’s creative industries and therefore support clause 50 and schedule 8, but we are concerned that we keep creating relief after relief. Why does this targeted measure take the form of a tax relief, rather than a grant? Also, the industry is concerned that the relief does not support commercial music production, which is supported in other countries. Will the Minister clarify today, or indeed in a written response after today, what support is in place for this important industry?
Finally, what modelling have the Government done to ensure that the legislation is rigorous enough to prevent use of the relief for avoidance purposes? I understand that there were some issues about film tax relief and avoidance, and I am also concerned that the wording in proposed new section 1217RL to the Corporation Tax Act 2009 may not be very robust, especially with reference to those tax avoidance arrangements that fall within the ambiguous term, “understanding”; I am sure that the Minister will agree that by their very nature those will not be contractual. Will he confirm whether he has given thought to additional resources that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs might need if it is adequately to investigate such scenarios?
Clause 51 simply makes minor, consequential amendments to the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 and the Corporation Tax Act 2010, substituting the words “section 1218B” for “section 1218”. The Opposition support television and video games tax relief, as we introduced it. We see no issue with this technical clause.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again this morning, Mr Howarth. I welcome the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles to the Committee. She has taken on a substantial workload in the past few days. Having had experience of performing her role of holding the Government to account in the Finance Bill, I recognise how challenging it can be. I wish her luck in that; if I may say so, she has made an excellent start, raising important points about this group of clauses.
I will start with a few words about clauses 50 and 51 and schedule 8, and then I will respond to the hon. Lady’s questions. The Government have supported our world-leading creative and cultural sectors, which have entertained millions worldwide while attracting significant investment into the United Kingdom. Clause 50 and schedule 8 provide further support by introducing a new corporation tax relief for the production of orchestral concerts. The Government recognise the cultural value and artistic importance of Britain’s orchestras. The relief is intended to support them in continuing to perform for a range of audiences, and in contributing to British culture.
Clause 51 makes minor consequential amendments to the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 and the Corporation Tax Act 2010 as a result of the introduction of video games tax relief in the Finance Bill 2013. The change is not expected to have an impact on businesses that claim the relief.
The UK is home to some exciting, world-famous orchestras. The relief introduced by clause 50 recognises their artistic importance and cultural value. Its objective is to support orchestras so that they can continue to perform for a wide range of audiences. To deliver that support, the Government are building on the success of existing creative sector tax reliefs available for the production of film, high-end television and children’s television, video games, animation and theatre. Those reliefs have shown how targeted support can make a real difference, not only by promoting economic activity, but by promoting British culture and the way that the UK is viewed internationally.
Clause 50 will introduce a new corporation tax relief and payable tax credit for the qualifying costs of producing an orchestral performance. It will support a wide variety of ensembles and performances, from chamber orchestras to large brass bands playing music ranging from jazz to blues. It will allow production companies to claim a payable tax credit worth up to 25% of the cost of developing an orchestral concert, with effect from 1 April this year.
In 2013, minor consequential amendments were made to the Corporation Tax Act 2010, as some sections were renumbered following the introduction of video games tax relief in the Finance Bill 2013. Clause 51 makes a further consequential amendment to the Act and the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992; it is not expected to have an impact on any business claiming that relief.
The Government are grateful for the constructive and positive engagement with the industry since the policy was announced, and during consultation in 2015. That has enabled us to understand better how the orchestra industry operates, and to design a relief that will work across the sector. The director of the Association of British Orchestras, Mark Pemberton, has commented that the relief
“will make a big difference to our members’ resilience in these challenging times, helping them to continue to offer the very best in British music-making to audiences both here in the UK and abroad.”
The hon. Lady asked whether there was a risk of the relief being abused. Effective anti-avoidance rules are critical to the long-term success and stability of orchestra tax relief. Rules similar to those applied to the creative industry reliefs aim to prevent artificial inflation of claims. In addition, there will be a general anti-avoidance rule based on the GAAR denying relief where there are any tax-avoidance arrangements relating to the production—and, of course, HMRC will monitor for abuse once the regime has been introduced. On HMRC resourcing, I point the Committee in the direction of the £800 million announced in last year’s summer Budget, which provided further investment in HMRC to deal with avoidance and evasion measures more generally.
I come back to the point the hon. Lady raised about film tax relief and how that was abused. It is true that an earlier design of film tax relief was brought in by the previous Labour Government and was abused. That relief was abandoned by that Government, and the replacement model has been much more successful. It has provided the support that the film industry needs and benefits from, and that has helped to ensure that we have a thriving film industry without anything like the risks of abuse we saw formerly. In the measures that we have taken, we have learned from the previous approach.
The hon. Lady referred to making use of an EEA definition, and understandably asked what the implications are of the vote to leave the European Union. It is too early to say exactly how that will work. We are not sure what relationship we will have with the European Union, other than that we will be leaving it. It is quite possible that EEA definitions and so on will remain relevant, but we currently remain members of the EU and are considering legislation that takes effect in April, so it is necessary to comply with the rules as they stand. If it is necessary to review definitions, that is something we will have to look at, but that will depend on the future renegotiation.
The hon. Lady expressed the concern that perhaps we have too many tax reliefs. As the Chancellor made clear in the House of Commons yesterday, there is a place for reliefs, but our general and main focus has been on lowering corporation tax rates, and that continues to be the case. There is scope for using tax reliefs to support investment in growth through the tax system, and that is why we provide a range of tax reliefs and allowances. The Government have restricted a number of tax reliefs and allowances; for example, we have introduced a cap on income tax reliefs, restricted relief for buy-to-let landlords and capped the amount of losses through which banks can reduce their tax, so we have taken action on reliefs where we feel that their use is disproportionate to the benefits for the wider economy.
On orchestras, the Government are committed to supporting the arts through both spending programmes and tax reliefs. The orchestra tax relief is intended to complement current funding. It is specifically aimed at supporting orchestras in continuing to produce high-quality music that is enjoyed by a range of audiences. In those circumstances, we think it is justifiable. I hope that the clause has the support of Members in all parts of the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 50 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 52
Banking companies: excluded entities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Rebecca Long Bailey
Clauses 52 and 53 relate to the taxation of banking companies. Clause 52 amends the excluded entity test that forms part of the definition of a bank for tax purposes, and clause 53 makes provisions to restrict corporation tax loss relief.
Following the financial crash in 2008, specific taxes were imposed on the banking sector, and a definition of “banking companies” was required. The excluded entity test forms part of this definition. Clause 52 revises the legislation so that undertaking a second activity is possible, provided that the entity undertakes one of the specified regulated activities in the excluded entities test, and that the other activity, when considered by itself—that is, without taking into account the regulated activity that is specified in the excluded entities test—would not require the firm to be both an IFPRU 730K investment firm and a full-scope IFPRU firm as defined by reference to the Financial Conduct Authority handbook.
As the British Bankers Association has explained in far more articulate layman’s terms,
“Effectively there is a list of permitted activities which do not cause you to be treated as a bank and brought into the various bank-specific taxes, even if you meet all the other conditions. The change to the rules allows you to carry on more than one of those activities and still be excluded.”
This measure clarifies the rules and has been welcomed by industry. We therefore have no issue with agreeing the clause today. We also welcome clause 53, which, to quote the explanatory notes to the Bill,
“further restricts the proportion of a banking company’s annual taxable profit that can be offset by brought forward losses to 25%. The further restriction will apply to accounting periods beginning on or after 1 April 2016.”
At autumn statement 2014, it was announced that the amount of taxable profit that could be offset by banks’ historical carried-forward losses would be restricted to 50% from April 2015. However, this clause further restricts the proportion of a banking company’s annual taxable profit that can be offset by brought-forward losses from 50% to 25%. The restriction will remain subject to a £25 million allowance for building societies, and an exemption for losses incurred by new entrant banks. The Government estimate that this will generate over £2 billion in extra revenue between the current financial year and 2020-21. They also state that the measure should be revenue-neutral in the long run for any one bank, but the timing of the measure may well have negative implications for cash flow.
The British Bankers Association has indicated that further restricting bank losses from the financial crisis to 25% of profits rather than 50% primarily brings about a timing difference; it effectively accelerates payment of £2 billion in tax into this Parliament and out of the next one. Combined with the previous changes, it means £5 billion is being brought forward to this Parliament.
Can the Minister say why the Chancellor needed to accelerate this windfall in tax revenues? Was it part of his desperate attempts to ensure a budget surplus by 2020? I suspect it might have been. However, that argument is now redundant, given the recent suspension of that aim, and I am really glad that the Chancellor is finally listening to the experts and my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor. Nevertheless, we welcome this new requirement on banking companies to increase their contribution to the Exchequer in the light of their role in causing the current economic situation.
I am glad that the Government are taking steps to address the casino banking sector. However, the policy should be seen in the wider context of the Government’s new settlement with financial services, as announced by the Chancellor, which includes the shift in emphasis from the bank levy to the banks’ tax surcharge as a result of lobbying by the sector, and watering down promised regulatory provisions in the Bank of England Act 2016.
In the 2016 Budget, the introduction of a general restriction on carried-forward losses was announced. That will come into effect on 1 April 2017, and the Opposition support it. In the meantime, we are more than happy to agree to the further restriction set out in clause 53.
Philip Boswell
Thank you. In relation to new clause 3, the cut to the supplementary charge set out in clause 54 is of course welcome. It will assist in encouraging business investment, and I commend this initiative. However, the UK Government’s support for the oil and gas industry, as it pertains to the cut in the supplementary charge and in a more general sense, does not go far enough. The alterations made to the financing of the oil and gas sector fall significantly short of the fiscal and regulatory reforms necessary to ensuring a steady recovery in the ongoing North sea crisis. Despite the oil price continuing to rise—it is currently around $50 for Brent crude—instead of the extensive regulatory changes experienced over the past 15 years, stability and certainty are required to increase and retain investment as well as some incentivisation. I must admit to being further encouraged by the Minister’s statements in this respect.
However, the UK Government must consider all possibilities that could facilitate fresh investment in the oil and gas sector. These possibilities need not be restricted to fiscal support. For example, schemes such as Government guarantees ought to be explored. I would welcome such initiatives from the Minister. Has he considered further the following suggestions, made by the Scottish Government to the Chancellor in February 2016: removing fiscal barriers, specifically for exploration and enhanced oil recovery; implementing fiscal reforms to improve access to decommissioning tax relief and encourage late-life asset transfers—that would reduce costs and help prevent premature cessation of production, which is critical if marginal fields are to be garnered in future—and implementing additional non-fiscal support, such as Government loan guarantees, to sustain investment in the sector? I welcome his commitment to future legislation, especially in relation to cluster allowances, and look forward to its introduction. The industry has called for a comprehensive strategic review of tax rates and investment allowances. Based upon my own experience of working in the sector, I believe that this review would be beneficial, hence my support for new clause 3.
In relation to new clause 6, the UK continental shelf is one of the first large fields in the world to reach super-mature status. This poses both a challenge and an enormous amount of opportunity. While no reservoir on the planet has harvested more than 50% of its reserves, and most of the “sweet oil”—the high-quality, easy-to-reach oil found to date, which requires minimum processing—has gone from the sector, we need to look at improving recovery and the technology required to maximise output through enhanced oil recovery, in order to maximise profits from these fields, marginal or otherwise.
Decommissioning is a key part of the life cycle of UKCS assets. Some have now lasted for over three decades, which in many cases considerably exceeds their original design life. It is advances in technology and additional tie-backs—additional nearby fields that can be tied into the existing infrastructure—which would otherwise be unprofitable if they required a bespoke pipeline, that have made our oil and gas industry so successful.
Oil & Gas UK has estimated that between now and 2040 the total decommissioning spend in the North sea on offshore assets is set to rise by £46 billion. That represents a huge opportunity for domestic supply chains, not to mention extensive finds further west of Shetland and off the west coast of Scotland, which as yet have hardly been touched. The companies that operate on the UK continental shelf are respected all over the world, as it is there, in rough seas with heavy swells, that technology has advanced in conjunction with safety measures to ensure that the North sea, and Scotland in particular, are at the forefront of offshore construction and sub-sea technology, which is something I specialised in at BP, Shell and Premier Oil.
Given our well-deserved status in sub-sea technology and the maturity of some of our fields, there is a real opportunity to become world leaders in well plugging and decommissioning. The UK Government need to incentivise and support the oil and gas industry so that UKCS expertise can be further developed in the North sea and exported around the globe. That begins with ensuring that the oil and gas industry is working in a fiscal regime that is appropriate to the maturity of the field, which is what new clause 6 seeks to do. Although there are always new fields being discovered and technological advances rendering previously unprofitable reservoirs profitable, it is in the management of mature assets, via enhanced oil recovery and further tie-backs, that optimise power output and profitability, a strategy adopted by Statoil, our near neighbours, the Norwegian national oil and gas company, where every barrel counts. That has proved very successful and is a strategy we should copy.
The removal of fiscal and regulatory barriers is imperative to the advancement of an internationally competitive tax regime in the North sea, such as Norway’s incentive to remove taxation on exploration where the contractor or operator drills a duster. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig) in September 2015, committed to a proactive policy to encourage the development of a capable and competitive UK supply chain. That proactive approach needs to start sooner rather than later.
I welcome the Minister’s announcement on the oil and gas technology centre in Aberdeen, and on the decommissioning focus in Aberdeen and the offshore construction centre in the UK, but what steps have the Government taken to compensate oil and gas companies for exploration in the UKCS where a duster is drilled? For example, in Norway no tax is applied to such exploration. What tax incentives are in place, or are being considered, to encourage or subsidise decommissioning projects by UK companies, where new technologies, techniques or even tried and tested decommissioning methods are utilised on various types of assets?
In September 2015 Wood Mackenzie reported that low oil prices could render marginal fields economically unviable and lead to potential decommissioning of up to 140 fields within the next five years. I reiterate that Brent crude remains at around $50 a barrel. If prices continue to rise to the forecast $70 to $75 dollars a barrel after the summer, what tax incentives has the Minister put in place to identify and retain critical infrastructure across the UKCS?
With that in mind, new clause 6 calls for 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, with the aim of ensuring that we take advantage of this momentous opportunity.
Rebecca Long Bailey
With permission, I will speak to clauses 54 and 128 together before moving on to the remaining clauses and new clauses.
As we have heard, clauses 54 and 128 reduce the rates of the supplementary charge levied on the ring-fenced profits of companies involved in oil and gas production and petroleum revenue tax respectively. Companies involved in the exploration for and production of oil and gas in the UK are charged ring fence corporation tax and a supplementary charge. RFCT is calculated in the same way as corporation tax but with the addition of a ring fence so that losses on the mainland cannot be offset against profits from continental shelf fields. It is important to note that the rates of RFCT differ from those of corporation tax, and that the main rate of RFCT is 30%. The supplementary charge is an additional charge on a company’s ring-fenced profits. Clause 54 would reduce the supplementary charge from 20% to 10% from 1 January 2016.
Petroleum revenue tax, which was introduced in 1975, is a tax on the profits from oil and gas production from fields approved before 16 March 1993. The Finance Act 1993 reduced the rate from 75% to 50%, and it was then reduced to 35% from 1 January 2016. Clause 128 reduces the rate to zero, effectively abolishing the tax, as the Chancellor explained in his Budget speech. These two measures, taken together, are expected to cost the Treasury just over £1 billion between this financial year and 2021. The Government expect the reduction in rates to increase the post-tax profits of affected companies. This will make investment in oil and gas projects on the UK continental shelf more attractive, which will lead to additional production of oil and gas.
According to the tax information and impact note, and as the Minister confirmed today, there are around 200 companies extracting oil and gas in the UK. The industry directly supports 30,000 jobs, with another 250,000 in the supply chain. The decrease in the supplementary charge and the petroleum revenue tax will have a positive impact on company post-tax profits and result in lower instalment payments being made. We have already welcomed this support for the UK’s oil and gas industry. The industry trade body, Oil & Gas UK, has broadly welcomed this reduction in the headline rate of tax paid on UK oil and gas production, from a rate of 50% to 67.5% to a rate of 40% across all fields.
However, it is important to note that Oil & Gas UK has stated that the reduction in tax will help only those companies that are actually making a profit. It estimates that fewer than half a dozen companies are paying corporation tax this year. Indeed, the 2016 Budget stated that the tax receipts for these companies in 2015-16 were zero. A reduction in those tax rates is therefore welcome, but it is a long-term benefit.
Frankly, I think that more needs to be done in the short term. Stakeholders have said that they are more concerned about the lack of exploration activity. Only one well was drilled in the first quarter of 2016, so more has to be done to stimulate exploration. Can the Minister confirm whether any plans are in the pipeline—excuse the pun, but we have to get our fun somewhere in the Finance Bill—to stimulate exploration on the UK continental shelf in the short term?
I have also heard concerns from the industry about the late-life asset market. As we have heard today from Scottish Members, decommissioning is a normal part of a production cycle, but it is very expensive. I am aware that a tax relief is available, but it depends on a company’s tax history. If new companies buy older fields, they cannot access the relief, thus blocking late-life asset trade. Essentially, assets are not being sold on as they should be. The policy paper on the 2016 Budget states that the Government are open to exploring
“whether decommissioning tax relief could better encourage transfers of late-life assets”,
if “significant progress” on reducing the cost of decommissioning has been made. I worry that that is rather vague. I would therefore welcome clarification from the Minister on exactly what “significant progress” means.
Clauses 55 to 59 make minor changes to the investment allowance, cluster area allowance and onshore allowance. These three allowances provide relief by reducing the amount of ring-fenced profits on which the supplementary charge is due. Investment and cluster area allowances are given at a rate of 62.5%, and onshore allowance at 75%. Clauses 55 and 58 update the conditions that disqualify expenditure from generating investment allowance and cluster area allowance respectively. They expand the conditions following the extension of the allowance to include some leasing expenditure by secondary legislation not yet enacted. As we have heard from the Minister, this is to ensure that there are no gaps in the legislation that would permit these allowances to be generated twice. This will have effect for expenditure incurred on or after 16 March 2016.
The clauses are technical measures with which I have no issue whatever. However, stakeholders have expressed frustration that it has taken so long to lay before Parliament the regulations extending the allowances. According to Oil & Gas UK, the consultation on the draft statutory instrument concluded in January, and since then things have gone quiet. Could the Minister take this opportunity to confirm exactly when the draft SI will be laid before Parliament?
Rebecca Long Bailey
Clause 60 and schedule 9 make substantial changes to the patent box, which provides for a reduced rate of corporation tax on profits from patents and similar intellectual property. The changes in this clause ensure compliance with the new international framework developed by the OECD for preferential IP regimes as part of the base erosion and profit shifting project.
The changes mean that the amount of profit for an IP asset that qualifies for the reduced 10% rate of corporation tax available through the UK patent box will depend on the proportion of the asset’s development expenditure incurred by the company. According to the explanatory notes to the Bill, the amended rules will require profit for the purpose of the patent box to be calculated at the level of an IP asset—for example, the patent, product, or product family relying on an IP asset or assets. The profit will be adjusted to reflect the proportion of the development activity on the asset, product, or product category undertaken by the company.
As the Minister confirmed, the measure will have effect for new entrant companies to the patent box on or after 1 July 2016, and also for some IP assets acquired on or after 2 January 2016. The new rules are being phased in, which is welcome; the current patent box rules will apply to some companies and IP throughout a transitional period lasting until 2021. The new rules will apply to all companies and IP after 2021.
By way of background, in December 2009 the Labour Government announced that they would consult on introducing a patent box—a reduced rate of corporation tax applied to income from patents—from April 2013 at a possible annual cost of £1.3 billion. The coalition Government took up our proposals for a patent box in a wider review of corporate taxation launched in November 2010. The consultation document argued that a tax relief would be most effective if it focused on patents, and that it would be proportionate to charge corporation tax at just 10% on profits made from them.
The coalition Government confirmed their plans in the 2011 Budget, and published a further consultation document in June. Draft legislation for the Finance Bill 2012 was published in December, including provisions for the patent box. In Budget 2012, the Government confirmed the introduction of the patent box, which would be phased in over five years from 1 April 2013. They estimated that its cost would rise from £350 million in 2013-14 to £910 million by 2016-17.
The Opposition welcomed the introduction of the relief, while moving an amendment to require the Government to report on
“other opportunities to introduce targeted support for business”.
This tax reform was clearly strongly supported by business at the time, but was not uncontroversial. Concerns were raised by several European countries, as well as the European Commission, that reform might represent harmful tax competition, encouraging companies to shift the ownership of patents created in other countries to the UK.
In late 2013, the EU code of conduct group raised concerns about the UK patent box, leading to press speculation that the Government might have to substantively amend the new relief. In November 2014, the Government announced that the UK had agreed with Germany that preferential intellectual property regimes—of which the UK patent box is one—should not encourage harmful tax competition and, as a result, certain changes would be made to the UK regime from June 2016. Subsequently, in October 2015, HMRC launched a consultation on amending the patent box regime to take account of these concerns. In December 2015, draft legislation to give effect to this change was published along with an impact note on the measure.
The 2016 Budget specifically confirmed that
“The government will modify the operation of the Patent Box to comply with a new set of international rules created by the OECD, making the lower tax rate dependent on, and proportional to, the extent of research and development expenditure incurred by the company claiming the relief. This will come into effect on 1 July 2016.”
Mr Gauke
I thank the hon. Lady for her broad support for the patent box. What we sought to do with the patent box—both when it was introduced and now—is ensure that we have incentives in our tax system to encourage internationally mobile activity. This is about bringing jobs and investment to the United Kingdom. It is not about artificial profit shifting. On the Government’s wider approach to the international tax system, we believe that there should be close alignment between economic activity, the profits that relate to that, and where those profits are taxed. That is why the UK has taken a leading role in the OECD’s base erosion and profit shifting process. Of course, any process like BEPS requires compromise, but the direction in which we believe the international tax system should go—towards closer alignment—is the one that BEPS has pursued, and we are pleased with the outcomes.
The changes to the patent box reflect a degree of compromise, but in essence, thanks to the patent box, the UK continues to offer an attractive place in which intellectual property may be developed. That is something that we wish to continue. I have to pick up on three of the points made by the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles. In the context of the EU, I will make a similar point to one I made earlier: we are still in the EU and a negotiation has yet to be undertaken to know where we stand exactly. There is also a wider point: when addressing the challenges of the international tax system, much of the legislation would apply whether we were in the EU or not, because the OECD BEPS process applies to all OECD countries. I do not think that anyone is proposing a referendum on whether we should leave the OECD—it is not one that I would welcome. In these circumstances, we expect to comply with the OECD standard, and that is very much our approach.
The hon. Lady also made a couple of technical points, the first of which was about what constitutes exceptional circumstances. For example, IP might have been purchased but turned out to be worth less, so that its contribution to the fraction is out of line with the cost. Obviously I cannot be exhaustive, but I hope that example is helpful in illustrating the types of things we are talking about. She also asked about tracking and tracing at an individual product level, and why that is not the approach we have taken. Companies will be able to track and trace at IP product level, so I hope that she is reassured, but I will write to her with further information.
Amendment 50 agreed to.
Amendments made: 51, in clause 60, page 94, line 38, leave out “either”.
Amendment 52, in clause 60, page 94, line 43, leave out “multi-IP” and insert “IP”.
Amendment 53, in clause 60, page 94, line 43, at end insert
“, or
(c) a sub-stream consisting of income properly attributable to a particular kind of IP process (a “process sub-stream”)”.
Amendment 54, in clause 60, page 95, line 1, leave out from “See” to second “and” and insert
“subsection (5) for the meaning of “IP item” and “IP process””.
Amendment 55, in clause 60, page 95, line 2, before “further” insert
“see subsections (5A) and (6) for”.
Amendment 56, in clause 60, page 95, line 2, at end insert “and process sub-streams”.
Amendment 57, in clause 60, page 95, line 12, at end insert—
“But see section 357BIA (which provides that certain amounts allocated to a relevant IP income sub-stream at Step 3 are not to be deducted from the sub-stream at this Step).”
Amendment 58, in clause 60, page 95, leave out lines 13 to 17.
Amendment 59, in clause 60, page 95, line 19, leave out from beginning to “deduct” in line 20.
Amendment 60, in clause 60, page 95, leave out lines 40 to 47 and insert—
“(5) In this section—
“IP item” means—
(a) an item in respect of which a qualifying IP right held by the company has been granted, or
(b) an item which incorporates one or more items within paragraph (a);
“IP process” means—
(a) a process in respect of which a qualifying IP right held by the company has been granted, or
(b) a process which incorporates one or more processes within paragraph (a).
(5A) For the purposes of this section two or more IP items, or two or more IP processes, may be treated as being of a particular kind if they are intended to be, or are capable of being, used for the same or substantially the same purposes.”
Amendment 61, in clause 60, page 95, line 48, leave out
“which is properly attributable to a multi-IP item”.
Amendment 62, in clause 60, page 95, line 49, after “sub-stream” insert “or process sub-stream”.
Amendment 63, in clause 60, page 96, line 5, at end insert—
‘( ) Any reference in this section to a qualifying IP right held by the company includes a reference to a qualifying IP right in respect of which the company holds an exclusive licence.”
Amendment 64, in clause 60, page 98, line 2, leave out “357A” and insert “357A(1)”.
Amendment 65, in clause 60, page 98, line 21, after first “income” insert “, finance income”.
Amendment 66, in clause 60, page 100, line 41, at end insert—
“357BIA Certain amounts not to be deducted from sub-streams at Step 4 of section 357BF
(1) This section applies where a company enters into an arrangement with a person under which—
(a) the person assigns to the company a qualifying IP right or grants or transfers to the company an exclusive licence in respect of a qualifying IP right, and
(b) the company makes to the person an income-related payment.
(2) A payment is an “income-related payment” for the purposes of subsection (1) if—
(a) the obligation to make the payment arises under the arrangement by reason of the amount of income the company has accrued which is properly attributable to the right or licence, or
(b) the amount of the payment is determined under the arrangement by reference to the amount of income the company has accrued which is so attributable.
(3) If the amount of the income-related payment is allocated to a relevant IP income sub-stream at Step 3 of section 357BF(2), the amount is not to be deducted from the sub-stream at Step 4 of section 357BF(2) unless the payment will not affect the R&D fraction for the sub-stream.”
Amendment 67, in clause 60, page 104, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 31 on page 105.
Amendment 68, in clause 60, page 108, line 13, at end insert—
“(3A) If an election made by the company under section 18A of CTA 2009 (election for exemption for profits or losses of company’s foreign permanent establishments) applies to the relevant period, expenditure incurred by the company during the period which meets conditions A and B—
(a) is not “qualifying expenditure on relevant R&D undertaken in-house”, but
(b) is “qualifying expenditure on relevant R&D sub-contracted to connected persons”,
so far as it is expenditure brought into account in calculating a relevant profits amount, or a relevant losses amount, aggregated at section 18A(4)(a) or (b) of CTA 2009 in calculating the company’s foreign permanent establishments amount for the period.”
Amendment 69, in clause 60, page 108, line 22, leave out
“incorporated in a multi-IP item”
and insert
“—
(i) to which income in the sub-stream is attributable, or
(ii) which is incorporated in an item”.
Amendment 70, in clause 60, page 108, line 23, at end insert
“, or
(c) in a case where the sub-stream is a process sub-stream, relates to a qualifying IP right granted in respect of any process—
(i) to which income in the sub-stream is attributable, or
(ii) which is incorporated in a process to which income in the sub-stream is attributable.”
Amendment 71, in clause 60, page 109, line 8, leave out “65% of any” and insert “the”.
Amendment 72, in clause 60, page 109, leave out lines 10 to 15 and insert
“in making payments within subsection (2).
(2) A payment is within this subsection if—
(a) it is made to a person in respect of relevant research and development contracted out by the company to the person, and
(b) the company and the person are not connected (within the meaning given by section 1122).”
Amendment 73, in clause 60, page 109, line 15, at end insert—
“(3) If an election made by the company under section 18A of CTA 2009 (election for exemption for profits or losses of company’s foreign permanent establishments) applies to the relevant period, expenditure incurred by the company during the period in making payments within subsection (2)—
(a) is not “qualifying expenditure on relevant R&D sub-contracted to unconnected persons”, but
(b) is “qualifying expenditure on relevant R&D sub-contracted to connected persons”,
so far as it is expenditure brought into account in calculating a relevant profits amount, or a relevant losses amount, aggregated at section 18A(4)(a) or (b) of CTA 2009 in calculating the company’s foreign permanent establishments amount for the period.”
Amendment 74, in clause 60, page 109, line 23, after “means” insert “the total of—
(a) any expenditure which is “qualifying expenditure on relevant R&D sub-contracted to connected persons” as a result of section 357BMB(3A) or 357BMC(3) (certain expenditure attributed to company’s foreign permanent establishments), and
(b) ”.
Amendment 75, in clause 60, page 109, line 23, leave out “65% of any” and insert “the”.
Amendment 76, in clause 60, page 109, leave out lines 25 to 30 and insert
“in making payments within subsection (2).
‘(2) A payment is within this subsection if—
(a) it is made to a person in respect of relevant research and development contracted out by the company to the person, and
(b) the company and the person are connected (within the meaning given by section 1122).”
Amendment 77, in clause 60, page 109, line 39, leave out from “company” to end of line 41 and insert
“in making during the relevant period payments within any of subsections (1A), (1B) and (1C).
(1A) A payment is within this subsection if it is made to a person in respect of the assignment by that person to the company of a relevant qualifying IP right.
(1B) A payment is within this subsection if it is made to a person in respect of the grant or transfer by that person to the company of an exclusive licence in respect of a relevant qualifying IP right.
(1C) A payment is within this subsection if—
(a) it is made to a person in respect of the disclosure by that person to the company of any item or process, and
(b) the company applies for and is granted a relevant qualifying IP right in respect of that item or process (or any item or process derived from it).
(1D) Where the company has incurred expenditure in making a series of payments to a person in respect of a single assignment, grant, transfer or disclosure, each of the payments in the series is to be treated for the purposes of this section as having been made on the date on which the first payment in the series was made.”
Amendment 78, in clause 60, page 110, line 2, leave out
“incorporated in a multi-IP item” and insert “—
(i) to which income in the sub-stream is attributable, or
(ii) which is incorporated in an item”.
Amendment 79, in clause 60, page 110, line 4, at end insert
“, or
(c) in a case where the sub-stream is a process sub-stream, a qualifying IP right granted in respect of a process—
(i) to which income in the sub-stream is attributable, or
(ii) which is incorporated in a process to which income in the sub-stream is attributable.”
Amendment 80, in clause 60, page 110, line 22, leave out “357BME” and insert “357BMD”.
Amendment 81, in clause 60, page 111, leave out from beginning of line 8 to “, and” in line 11 and insert
“in each of subsections (1A), (1B) and (1C) the word “relevant” were omitted”.
Amendment 82, in clause 60, page 112, line 25, leave out “357A” and insert “357A(1)”.
Amendment 83, in clause 60, page 112, line 46, at end insert—
“Small claims treatment
357BNA Small claims treatment
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a company carries on only one trade during an accounting period,
(b) section 357BF applies for the purposes of determining the relevant IP profits of the trade for the accounting period, and
(c) the qualifying residual profit of the trade for the accounting period does not exceed whichever is the greater of—
(i) £1,000,000, and
(ii) the relevant maximum for the accounting period.
(2) The company may make any of the following elections for the accounting period—
(a) a notional royalty election (see section 357BNB),
(b) a small claims figure election (see section 357BNC), and
(c) a global streaming election (see section 357BND).
This is subject to subsections (3) and (4).
(3) The company may not make a notional royalty election, a small claims figure election or a global streaming election for the accounting period if—
(a) the qualifying residual profit of the trade for the accounting period exceeds £1,000,000,
(b) section 357BF applied for the purposes of determining the relevant IP profits of the trade for any previous accounting period beginning within the relevant 4-year period, and
(c) the company did not make a notional royalty election, a small claims figure election or (as the case may be) a global streaming election for that previous accounting period.
(4) The company may not make a small claims figure election for the accounting period if—
(a) the qualifying residual profit of the trade for the accounting period exceeds £1,000,000,
(b) section 357C or 357DA applied for the purposes of determining the relevant IP profits of the trade for any previous accounting period beginning within the relevant 4-year period, and
(c) the company did not make an election under section 357CL for small claims treatment for that previous accounting period.
(5) In subsections (3) and (4) “the relevant 4-year period” means the period of 4 years ending with the beginning of the accounting period mentioned in subsection (1)(a).
(6) For the purposes of this section, the “qualifying residual profit” of a trade of a company for an accounting period is the amount which (assuming the company did not make an election under this section) would be equal to the aggregate of the relevant IP income sub-streams established at Step 2 in section 357BF(2) in determining the relevant IP profits of the trade for the accounting period, following the deductions from those sub-streams required by Step 4 in section 357BF(2) (ignoring the amount of any sub-stream which is not greater than nil following those deductions).
(7) For the purposes of this section, the “relevant maximum” for an accounting period of a company is—
(a) in a case where no company is a related 51% group company of the company in the accounting period, £3,000,000;
(b) in a case where one or more companies are related 51% group companies of the company in the accounting period, the amount given by the formula—
where N is the number of those related 51% group companies in relation to which an election under section 357A(1) has effect for the accounting period.
(8) For an accounting period of less than 12 months, the relevant maximum is proportionally reduced.
357BNB Notional royalty election
(1) Subsection (2) applies where a company has made a notional royalty election for an accounting period under section 357BNA(2)(a).
(2) In its application for the purposes of determining the relevant IP profits of the trade of the company for the accounting period, section 357BHA (notional royalty) has effect as if—
(a) in subsection (2) for “the appropriate percentage” there were substituted “75%”, and
(b) subsections (3) to (6) were omitted.”
357BNC Small claims figure election
(1) Subsection (2) applies where a company has made a small claims figure election for an accounting period under section 357BNA(2)(b).
(2) In its application for the purposes of determining the relevant IP profits of the trade of the company for the accounting period, section 357BF(2) (steps for calculating relevant IP profits) has effect as if in Step 6—
(a) for “marketing assets return figure” there was substituted “small claims figure”, and
(b) for “(see section 357BL)” there was substituted “(see section 357BNC(3))”.
(3) Subsections (4) to (9) apply for the purpose of calculating the small claims figure for a relevant IP income sub-stream established at Step 2 in section 357BF(2) in determining the relevant IP profits of a trade of a company for an accounting period.
(4) If 75% of the qualifying residual profit of the trade for the accounting period is lower than the small claims threshold, the small claims figure for the sub-stream is 25% of the amount of the sub-stream following Step 4 in section 357BF(2).
(5) If 75% of the qualifying residual profit of the trade for the accounting period is higher than the small claims threshold, the small claims figure for the sub-stream is the amount given by—
where—
A is the amount of the sub-stream following the deductions required by Step 4 in section 357BF(2),
QRP is the qualifying residual profit of the trade of the company for the accounting period, and
SCT is the small claims threshold.
(6) If no company is a related 51% group company of the company in the accounting period, the small claims threshold is £1,000,000.
(7) If one or more companies are related 51% group companies of the company in the accounting period, the small claims threshold is—
where N is the number of those related 51% group companies in relation to which an election under section 357A(1) has effect for the accounting period.
(8) For an accounting period of less than 12 months, the small claims threshold is proportionately reduced.
(9) Subsection (6) of section 357BNA (meaning of “qualifying residual profit”) applies for the purposes of subsection (4) and (5) of this section.
357BND Global streaming election
(1) Subsection (2) applies where a company has made a global streaming election for an accounting period under section 357BNA(2)(c).
(2) In its application for the purpose of determining the relevant IP profits of the trade of the company for the accounting period, this Chapter has effect with the following modifications.
(3) In subsection (2) of section 357BF (relevant IP profits)—
(a) omit Step 2,
(b) in Step 3 for “each of the relevant IP income sub-streams” substitute “the relevant IP income stream”,
(c) in Step 4—
(i) in the words before paragraph (a), for “each” substitute “the”,
(ii) for “sub-stream”, in each place it occurs, substitute “stream”,
(d) in Step 6—
(i) at the beginning insert “If the relevant IP income stream is greater than nil following Step 4,”,
(ii) for the words from “each” to “Step 4” substitute “the stream”,
(iii) for “sub-stream”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “stream”,
(e) in Step 7—
(i) for “each relevant IP income sub-stream” substitute “the relevant IP income stream”,
(ii) for “sub-stream”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “stream”,
(f) omit Step 8, and
(g) in Step 9 for “given by Step 8” substitute “of the relevant IP income stream following Step 7”.
(4) In subsection (3) of that section for “given by” substitute “of the relevant IP income stream following the Steps in”.
(5) In subsection (4) of that section for “given by” substitute “of the relevant IP income stream following the Steps in”.
(6) Omit subsections (5), (5A) and (6) of that section.
(7) In section 357BIA(3) (certain amounts not to be deducted from sub-streams at Step 4 of section 357BF)—
(a) for “a relevant IP income sub-stream” substitute “the relevant IP income stream”;
(b) for “sub-stream”, in the second and third places it occurs, substitute “stream”.
(8) In section 357BJ (routine return figure)—
(a) for “sub-stream”, in each place it occurs, substitute “stream”, and
(b) in subsection (1) for “Step 2” substitute “Step 1”.
(9) In section 357BL (marketing asset return figure) for “sub-stream”, in each place it occurs, substitute “stream”.
(10) In section 357BLA (notional marketing royalty)—
(a) for “sub-stream”, in each place it occurs, substitute “stream”, and
(b) in subsection (1) for “Step 2” substitute “Step 1”.
(11) In section 357BLB (actual marketing royalty) for “sub-stream”, in each place it occurs, substitute “stream”.
(12) In section 357BM (R&D fraction: introduction)—
(a) for “sub-stream” (in each place it occurs) substitute “stream”, and
(b) in subsection (1) for “Step 2” substitute “Step 1”.
(13) In section 357BMA(1) (R&D fraction) for “sub-stream” substitute “stream”.
(14) In section 357BMB(4) (qualifying expenditure on relevant R&D undertaken in-house) for the words after “1138)” substitute “which relates to a qualifying IP right to which income in the stream is attributable”.
(15) In section 357BME(2) (qualifying expenditure on acquisition of relevant qualifying IP rights) for the words from “means” to the end substitute “means a qualifying IP right to which income in the stream is attributable”.
(16) In section 357BMG (cases where the company is a new entrant with insufficient information about pre-enactment expenditure) for “sub-stream”, in each place it occurs, substitute “stream”.
(17) In section 357BMH (R&D fraction: increase for exceptional circumstances) for “sub-stream”, in each place it occurs, substitute “stream”.
(18) In section 357BNC (small claims figure election)—
(a) for “sub-stream”, in each place it occurs, substitute “stream”;
(b) in subsection (3) for “Step 2” substitute “Step 1”.”
Amendment 84, in clause 60, page 113, line 17, at end insert—
“( ) Where section 357BF applies by reason of this section for the purposes of determining the relevant IP profits of a trade of a company for an accounting period, the company may not make a global streaming election for the accounting period under section 357BNA(2)(c).”
Amendment 85, in clause 60, page 113, leave out lines 34 to 44 and insert—
“(a) the company and the person who assigned the right or granted the licence were connected at the time of the assignment or grant,
(b) the main purpose, or one of the main purposes, of the assignment of the right or the grant of the licence was the avoidance of a foreign tax,
(c) the person who assigned the right or granted the licence was not within the charge to corporation tax at the time of the assignment or grant, and
(d) the person who assigned the right or granted the licence was not liable at the time of the assignment or grant to a foreign tax which is designated for the purposes of this section by regulations made by the Treasury.”
Amendment 86, in clause 60, page 114, line 1, leave out “(9)(b)” and insert “(8)(d)”.
Amendment 87, in clause 60, page 114, line 4, at end insert—
“( ) Regulations may not be made under subsection (8)(d) after 31 December 2016.”
Amendment 88, in clause 60, page 114, line 21, leave out “(b)” and insert “(c)”.
Amendment 89, in clause 60, page 114, line 24, leave out
“and each product sub-stream”
and insert
“, each product sub-stream and each process sub-stream”.
Amendment 90, in clause 60, page 114, line 32, leave out
“and product sub-streams”
and insert
“, each of the product sub-streams and each of the process sub-streams”.
Amendment 91, in clause 60, page 114, line 42, leave out “a multi-IP item” and insert
“an IP item or IP process”.
Amendment 92, in clause 60, page 114, line 44, after “sub-stream” insert “or process sub-stream”.
Amendment 93, in clause 60, page 114, line 45, leave out “multi-IP item” and insert
“IP item or IP process”.
Amendment 94, in clause 60, page 115, line 1, after “item” insert “or process”.
Amendment 95, in clause 60, page 115, line 4, after “item” insert “or process”.
Amendment 96, in clause 60, page 115, line 8, leave out “multi-IP item” and insert
“IP item or IP process”.
Amendment 97, in clause 60, page 115, line 9, leave out “item or items” and insert “items or processes”.
Amendment 98, in clause 60, page 115, line 11, leave out “multi-IP item” and insert
“IP item or IP process”.
Amendment 99, in clause 60, page 115, line 13, leave out “multi-IP item” and insert
“IP item or IP process”.
Amendment 100, in clause 60, page 115, line 17, after “sub-stream” insert “or process sub-stream”.
Amendment 101, in clause 60, page 115, line 18, leave out “multi-IP item” and insert
“IP item or IP process”.
Amendment 102, in clause 60, page 115, line 20, leave out “multi-IP item” and insert
“IP item or IP process”.
Amendment 103, in clause 60, page 115, line 24, after “sub-stream” insert “or process sub-stream”.
Amendment 104, in clause 60, page 115, line 26, leave out “multi-IP item” and insert
“IP item or IP process”.
Amendment 105, in clause 60, page 115, line 27, after “sub-stream” insert “or process sub-stream”.
Amendment 106, in clause 60, page 115, line 27, leave out “multi-IP item” and insert
“IP item or IP process”.
Amendment 107, in clause 60, page 115, line 29, after “items” insert “or processes”.
Amendment 108, in clause 60, page 115, line 31, leave out “a multi-IP” and insert
“an IP item or IP process”.
Amendment 109, in clause 60, page 115, line 35, after “items” insert “or processes”
Amendment 110, in clause 60, page 115, line 35, leave out “multi-IP item” and insert
“IP item or IP process”.
Amendment 111, in clause 60, page 115, line 38, after “items” insert “or processes”.
Amendment 112, in clause 60, page 115, line 38, leave out “multi-IP item” and insert
“IP item or IP process”.
Amendment 113, in clause 60, page 115, line 40, at end insert—
“( ) In section 357FB (tax advantage schemes)—
(a) in subsection (2)(b) (list of ways by which deductions can be inflated)—
(i) omit “or” at the end of sub-paragraph (ii), and
(ii) after sub-paragraph (iii) insert “, or
(iv) an R&D fraction (see subsection (4A)) being greater than it would be but for the scheme.”, and
(b) after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) The reference in subsection (2)(b)(iv) to an R&D fraction is a reference to such a fraction as is mentioned at Step 7 of section 357BF(2).””
Amendment 114, in clause 60, page 115, line 40, at end insert—
“( ) After section 357GC insert—
“Transferred trades
357GCA Application of this Part in relation to transferred trades
(1) Where—
(a) a company (“the transferor”) ceases to carry on a trade which involves the exploitation of a qualifying IP right (“the relevant qualifying IP right”),
(b) the transferor assigns the relevant qualifying IP right, or grants or transfers an exclusive licence in respect of it, to another company (“the transferee”), and
(c) the transferee begins to carry on the trade,
the following provisions apply in determining under this Part the relevant IP profits of the trade carried on by the transferee.
(2) The transferee is to be treated as not being a new entrant if—
(a) an election under section 357A(1) has effect in relation to the transferor on the date of the assignment, grant or transfer mentioned in subsection (1)(b) (“the transfer date”), and
(b) the first accounting period of the transferor for which that election had effect began before 1 July 2016.
(3) The relevant qualifying IP right is to be treated as being an old qualifying IP right in relation to the transferee if by reason of section 357BP it is an old qualifying IP right in relation to the transferor.
(4) Expenditure incurred prior to the transfer date by the transferor which is attributable to relevant research and development undertaken by the transferor is to be treated for the purposes of section 357BMB as if it is expenditure incurred by the transferee which is attributable to relevant research and development undertaken by the transferee.
(5) Expenditure incurred prior to the transfer date by the transferor in making a payment to a person in respect of relevant research and development contracted out by the transferor to that person is to be treated for the purposes of sections 357BMC and 357BMD as if it is expenditure incurred by the transferee in making a payment to that person in respect of relevant research and development contracted out by the transferee to that person.
(6) Expenditure incurred prior to the transfer date by the transferor in making a payment in connection with the relevant qualifying IP right which is within subsection (1A), (1B) or (1C) of section 357BME is to be treated for the purposes of that section as if it is expenditure incurred by the transferee in making a payment in connection with that right which is within one of those subsections.
(7) Expenditure incurred by the transferee in making a payment to the transferor in respect of the assignment, grant or transfer mentioned in subsection (1)(b) is to be ignored for the purposes of section 357BME.
(8) In this section—
“trade” includes part of a trade, and
“relevant research and development” means research and development which relates to the relevant qualifying IP right.
(9) For the purposes of this section research and development “relates” to the relevant qualifying IP right if—
(a) it creates, or contributes to the creation of the invention,
(b) it is undertaken for the purpose of developing the invention,
(c) it is undertaken for the purpose of developing ways in which the invention may be used or applied, or
(d) it is undertaken for the purpose of developing any item or process incorporating the invention.””
Amendment 115, in clause 60, page 116, line 9, for “357A” substitute “357A(1)”.—(Mr Gauke.)
Clause 60, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 9
Profits from the exploitation of patents etc: consequential
Amendments made: 116, in schedule 9, page 330, line 30, at end insert—
“1A In section 357B (meaning of “qualifying company”), in subsection (3)(b)(ii), for “section 357A” substitute “section 357A(1)”.”
Amendment 117, in schedule 9, page 331, line 20, at end insert—
“( ) In subsection (6), in paragraph (a)(ii) of the definition of “relevant accounting period”, for “section 357A” substitute “section 357A(1)”.”
Amendment 118, in schedule 9, page 331, line 24, leave out paragraph 9 and insert—
“9 (1) Section 357CL (companies eligible to elect for small claims treatment) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) for “elect” substitute “make an election under this section”.
(3) In subsection (6) for “section 357A” substitute “section 357A(1)”.”
Amendment 119, in schedule 9, page 332, line 16, at end insert—
“13A In section 357EB (allocation of set-off amount within a group) in subsection (3)(a) for “section 357A” substitute “section 357A(1)”.
13B In section 357ED (company ceasing to carry on trade etc) in subsection (2)(c) for “section 357A” substitute “section 357A(1)”.”
Amendment 120, in schedule 9, page 332, line 18, at end insert—
“14A In section 357FB (tax advantage schemes) in subsection (4)(b) for “section 357A” substitute “section 357A(1)”.
14B (1) Section 357G (making an election under section 357A) is amended as follows.
(2) In the heading, for “section 357A” substitute “section 357A(1) or (11)(b)”.
(3) In subsection (1) for “section 357A” substitute “section 357A(1) or (11)(b)”.
14C (1) Section 357GA (revocation of election made under section 357A) is amended as follows.
(2) In the heading, for “section 357A” substitute “section 357A(1)”.
(3) In subsection (1) for “section 357A” substitute “section 357A(1)”.
(4) In subsection (5) for “section 357A” substitute “section 357A(1)”.”
Amendment 121, in schedule 9, page 332, line 28, at end insert—
“16A In section 357GE (other interpretation), in subsection (1), at the appropriate place insert—
“payment” includes payment in money’s worth,”.”— (Mr Gauke.)
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 61
Power to make regulations about the taxation of securitisation companies
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I want to say a few words about the clause; although it might not seem exciting at first glance, it really is, so listen carefully to what I am about to say.
Three principal themes underpin the Labour party’s approach to the provisions in clauses 61 and 64, which we will come to later—in particular, those relating to the taxation of financial products. First, we need to ensure that, when the UK leaves the EU, its arrangements for regulating taxation and financial activity serve the country best and protect it from abusive practices such as tax avoidance and financial crime. Those arrangements must demonstrate the highest levels of transparency and probity.
Secondly, we need to ensure that the infrastructure supporting the UK economy accords with international standards on taxation and regulation, including the relevant OECD and International Accounting Standards Board models, which are applicable to this Bill. Finally, we need to secure Britain’s place in the world by ensuring that it maintains the highest international standards.
The Bill’s proposals on the taxation of financial instruments may appear on the surface to be merely technical, but they raise a number of significant questions about the organisation of our economy and infrastructure in the near future. Clause 61 appears to be a simple extension of the corporation tax treatment of securitisation companies to the taxes Acts generally. However, in 2008 the non-existent regulation of securitisation structures amplified a medium-sized storm in the US real estate market, and it became a fully-fledged banking crisis. I would like to ask the Minister how closely HMRC and the Treasury have considered the risks that the provision will be used for tax avoidance purposes.
Experience suggests that, if we alter the basis on which tax is levied, financial institutions will attempt to create derivative products that generate losses for tax purposes on, before and after the transition between the two tax codes, as we saw in the case of Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Scottish Provident Institution 2003 and many other cases in Hudson’s “The Law on Financial Derivatives”.
Just in the reported cases, there are several examples of financial institutions using slippery derivative products, for want of a better phrase, to avoid tax liability, such as Prudential plc v. Revenue and Customs Commissioners 2008. In that case, Chancellor Morritt held that banks should not be entitled to dictate the tax consequences of their transactions by attributing particular descriptions to them. That sort of tax avoidance, using changes in the tax treatment of products, has been criticised by Professor Alastair Hudson as
“a veritable industry in off-the-peg tax avoidance schemes”
in his book “The Law on Financial Derivatives”. Has the Minister considered the misdescriptions that might be possible under this provision?
To return to the particulars of clause 61, securitisation structures operate by transferring assets—whether subprime 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 the special purpose vehicle. Usually, the residual amounts—the focus of clause 61—that are left in the special purpose vehicle are small, compared with the sums 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 proposes, and are to be treated in a different manner for tax purposes—although the provision does not make plain exactly what the different tax treatment will be—that makes it possible for the payment flows through a special purpose vehicle to be raised artificially so that larger sums could benefit from this different tax treatment.
Will the Minister confirm what is stopping an unscrupulous financial institution involved in the off-the-peg industry of tax avoidance derivatives from passing large sums—otherwise subject to withholding tax as payments of interest, for example—through special purpose vehicles? Have the Government considered in detail how such cash flows should be treated to prevent artificial or abusive tax avoidance?
Furthermore, securitisation products, in the form of collateralised debt obligations, use complex derivatives as part of their structure—namely, credit default swaps. The purpose of credit default swaps has always been to permit two things: first, speculation on the creditworthiness of companies and Governments issuing bonds; and secondly, a form of artificial insurance. A feature of credit default swaps and all other credit derivatives is that they are flexible tools—so flexible, in fact, that they are ideal for manipulating tax statutes for tax avoidance purposes.
Professor Alastair Hudson has described the inherent flexibility of financial derivatives in his book “The Law on Financial Derivatives”, which I recommend to the Minister for his summer holidays. Professor Hudson states that
“different legal structures and different pricing structures can generate different commercial and structural results out of substantially similar subject matter”.
As he shows, it is possible for options contracts to be reorganised as swaps, and vice versa, so the possibilities for tax avoidance are endless. Consequently, it would be simple for financial institutions to repackage their payment obligations to achieve whatever characteristics are most helpful for tax purposes. I fear that clause 61 is really only the tip of the iceberg. There is a serious general point behind the specificity of my concerns about the clause.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 10 be the Tenth schedule to the Bill.
Rebecca Long Bailey
The same general points that I made about clause 61 broadly apply to this clause. The United Kingdom finds itself occupying a new place in the world and the provisions in the clause relate to the difficult business of double tax treaties. Such treaties currently need to be negotiated on a bilateral basis with countries that are outside large trading blocs such as the EU. They are therefore a model for the sort of issues that will be vital for the UK outside the EU.
There are model double tax treaties created by the OECD, which will guide our work. A future Labour Government would be outward looking in forging alliances of the sort possible under the OECD umbrella to create viable tax regulation and financial regulation internationally. However, there are some contexts in which the provisions in schedule 10, which the clause introduces, appear to be a little vague. For example, proposed new section 259BD(8) prevents a company from being “under taxed”, by identifying the highest rate at which tax is charged and asking whether that is lower than the company’s full marginal rate of tax should have been.
That is to be done by taking into account, on a “just and reasonable basis”, any credit for underlying tax. The reference to just and reasonable appears somewhat vague when contrasted with, for example, provisions governing international accounting standards in earlier clauses. As a survivor of the legal world, will the Minister confirm what “just and reasonable” is intended to mean and how HMRC will use that broad measuring stick in practice? Does he think that is a sufficiently clear mechanism for identifying whether sufficient tax has been paid, or do the Government simply seek to grant HMRC as much slack as they can?
Mr Gauke
Clause 62 and schedule 10 make changes to tackle multinationals that avoid UK corporation tax through cross-border business structures known as hybrid mismatch arrangements. We are building on the new rules announced at autumn statement 2014 and extending them, not least so that they also cover overseas branches, leading the way on implementing international best practice in this area.
The changes will neutralise the tax effect of hybrid mismatch arrangements and effect the recommendations of action 2 of the G20-OECD base erosion and profit-shifting project. In addition, they will neutralise the tax effect of hybrid mismatch arrangements involving permanent establishments. That means that the measure will tackle aggressive tax planning where, within a multinational group, either one party gets a tax deduction for a payment while the other party does not have a taxable receipt or there is more than one tax deduction for the same expense. The aim is to eliminate the unfair tax advantages that arise from the use of hybrid entities, hybrid instruments, dual resident companies and permanent establishments. That will encourage businesses to adopt less complicated cross-border investment structures.
In 2013 the OECD and the G20 countries adopted a 15-point action plan to address base erosion and profit shifting. BEPS refers to tax-planning strategies that exploit gaps and mismatches in the tax rules of different countries to make profits disappear for tax purposes or to shift profits to locations where there is little or no real activity but where the tax rates are low, resulting in little or no overall corporate tax being paid. The BEPS action plan is aimed at ensuring that profits are taxed where the economic activities generating the profits are performed, and where value is created.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I will be brief. The provision raises some seemingly technical questions on the taxation of loan relationships and derivatives—concepts that are closely linked in tax law. As with the other clauses, it requires deeper thought as the UK prepares to leave the EU. What precise changes, which HMRC has presumably observed in the financial markets, have prompted the reforms proposed in clause 63?
The role of insurance companies, particularly naive participants such as AIG before 2008, in derivatives markets must give us all pause for thought when considering how to regulate and tax them in the future. Those enormous insurance companies are involved in vital financial services for our citizens as well as extraordinarily complex financial instruments, such as credit default swaps. We must therefore be concerned that the reforms to the treatment of insurance companies are considered necessary. Will the Minister confirm what work the Treasury has done on assessing the future treatment of derivatives and similar markets and their impact on the UK economy? It is important for the future health of the UK economy that careful analysis of those markets is conducted as we prepare to leave the EU.
Mr Gauke
Clause 63 makes changes to ensure that corporation tax rules applying to insurance companies carrying on long-term business produce the appropriate policy results. A new regime for the taxation of life insurance companies was introduced in the Finance Act 2012 and was widely welcomed. However, putting that into practice has uncovered some specific issues that must be resolved for the regime to operate smoothly and effectively. HMRC has worked with industry to identify those issues, which relate to three main areas: intangible fixed assets, deemed income and trading losses.
Clause 63 will make minor technical changes to that legislation to ensure that it operates as intended. The cost to the Exchequer is negligible. For intangible fixed assets, clause 63 will allow debits to be set against the income for the accounting period in which they are incurred. That will bring the rules into line with those for companies that are not life insurers. For deemed income, clause 63 will prevent unused interest expenses from being set against the minimum profits charge in any circumstances. That will mean that any such charge is always fully taxed. For trading losses, clause 63 will mean that their use is no longer restricted to a company’s net position on its derivative contracts in the same period, which will bring stability into that calculation. The changes are relatively minor in nature and will have a small impact on insurers’ profits. However, they are important as they will ensure that the legislation delivers the intended policy objectives.
As I said, the Finance Act 2012 introduced a fundamental rewrite of life insurance company taxation. Such major reforms are always likely to necessitate some minor adjustments when put into practice and HMRC has worked with the industry to identify a handful of issues where the legislation does not work as intended. The changes will simply ensure the legislation operates as initially intended, which is why we are making them. Of course, all these matters are kept under review. Again, the hon. Lady raises the point about EU membership and so on. I am not sure I have much to add to what I previously said on that matter. I hope that the clause stands part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 63 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mel Stride.)
Finance Bill (Fourth sitting)
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(8 years, 7 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.
UK Economy
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be debating with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in the first of what I hope will be many such debates. I thank the Chancellor, who is no longer in the Chamber, for his kind words.
There have been some fantastic speeches in this debate, and I want to run through some of the main issues that have been raised. The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) highlighted concerns about the leave campaign’s lack of a plan. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) stated that, sadly, some of the remain campaign’s predictions were coming true. I welcome the fact that he echoed the sentiments about a cross-party approach. He said that this is bigger than any leader, and it certainly is.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), whose comments I welcome, stated that he wanted to put decency back into democracy. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) feared for the international house of cards that Britain’s exit could cause to collapse. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who made a fantastic speech, echoed the risks that jobs would be moved, that communities in deprived areas would struggle to obtain investment, and that “Project Fear” would prove to be “Project Fact”. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) said:
“We are where we are and…we…have to lead from the front”.
I could not agree more.
The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) told us the terrible and harrowing story of his constituents who have left to go to France following the result of the European referendum—we hope that we can coax them back again—and he highlighted the problems faced by SMEs in trade. The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) made a very passionate speech. He stated that we should not kick the legs from under stability and highlighted the fact that falling markets affect the pensions of everyone. Finally, the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) echoed the comments about how people from the EU have enriched his local economy. He wanted to state that their contribution was valued, a sentiment that is certainly shared by Members on both sides of the House.
As my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor outlined in opening the debate, the decision to leave the EU poses considerable risks to the UK economy. The financial markets are in turmoil, sterling remains volatile, the UK’s triple A credit rating has been lost, and employers in some sectors have already started to discuss moving jobs out of Britain. This is very worrying, but we can turn it around. To do so, we need political and economic stability. We now need all parties to put their political interests aside and work together in the interest of their nation’s economy. I have enjoyed the tone of today’s debate, which has been broadly in agreement with that sentiment.
Stephen Gethins
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. Will she join me in welcoming the fact that the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and the Green party in Scotland have given the Scottish Government a mandate to negotiate with the European Union about Scotland’s continued membership of the EU, given the overwhelming vote?
Rebecca Long Bailey
I think that is really an issue for the Scottish Government. I am sure it will be the subject of many debates in the coming weeks, and I hope we will debate it further in this House.
On where we are now, I do not share the Chancellor’s assurances that our economy is now shockproof. He did not fix the roof while the sun was shining—quite the opposite: he sold it off. The growth we have heard about is largely built on a swelling bubble of household borrowing and an increase in poorly paid, insecure jobs. I was pleased to hear that his emergency Budget has been shelved for the time being. However, there remains a high probability that austerity measures will be introduced later in the year, imposed by a new Conservative Prime Minister who could be even more ideologically to the right than his or her predecessor. Such an approach, based on cuts and under-investment, has taken hold despite the fact that economists the world over agree that it is economic nonsense to cut Government spending when the economy may be heading towards recession. The most vulnerable will suffer, and our communities will snap under the strain of further public sector cuts. Quite frankly, people cannot take any more.
It is not hard to understand some of the reasons why vast swathes of people in this country voted so passionately in last week’s referendum—it is no wonder that people were angry with the political elite when their financial situations have worsened rather than improved. On doorsteps in my constituency, which has suffered from decades of industrial decline, I could feel the anger from those who have been left behind. They were right to be angry—angry that our hospitals and schools are in a state of crisis and starved of funding; angry that many people cannot get a home; and angry that our public services are being cut so that the safety net on which they rely is eroded. People rightly wanted something or someone to blame for that, but sadly that was confused in the rhetoric of some of the referendum campaigns. A hornets nest was stirred up with scaremongering about migration, rather than a debate on the core issue of why our economy was not working and how the EU affected that.
We must ensure that migrants living in Britain know that they are welcome, especially in the light of the racist attacks and abuse that have been reported since the referendum. I wholeheartedly echo the Chancellor’s comments that such behaviour is not British—that is not what makes Britain the great nation it is. Such disillusionment with the political establishment took root long before the EU referendum, and 1979—the year I was born—heralded the biggest change in economic thought that the country has ever seen. British manufacturing, and the secure well-paid jobs that came with it, was the envy of the world, but it had its heart and soul ripped out. In many cases manufacturing was moved overseas to cheaper labour markets, and the jobs lost were never really replaced. Communities around the country were destroyed, leaving future generations to pick up the pieces.
Following such decline there has been a failure to restructure our economy, to develop an industrial strategy to support key industries, and to make our country great. However, we are where we are, and whether people voted leave or remain, it falls on us in this House to build a country of which the British people can be proud and in which they feel safe. We need a plan to rebalance our economy and support our key industries—a proper industrial strategy to provide the secure jobs that we so desperately need, and Government investment in our economy so we can become the innovators of the world, with priority investment in those communities that have been economically neglected for years.
All Members of the House must fight for and support our economy and the people in it. The economic outlook for the UK is uncertain, and we are facing turbulent political times. As my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor emphasised earlier, there are strengths in our economy, but we must nurture and support them at this vital time. If we do not, the future looks bleak. Labour is willing to work across the House to ensure that the people of this country are protected from whatever is to come, and we are committed to delivering an economic agenda that promotes Britain and British industry. Let us be the envy of the world once again.
Finance Bill
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his earlier kind words, and commend him for his sterling effort over the last two days. He has fought his way through the Finance Bill with a bad back, and we wish him a speedy recovery. There will be a place in heaven for him, I am sure of that.
I want to speak about clauses 72 to 81, schedules 11 to 14, Government amendments 30 to 68, new clause 2, and the amendments that stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends. Clause 72 and schedules 11 and 12 cut the basic rate of capital gains tax from 18% to 10%, and the 28% rate to 20% on most gains made by individuals, trustees and personal representatives. Gains accruing on the disposal of interest in residential properties that do not qualify for private residence relief, and gains arising in respect of carried interest, remain subject to the 18% and 28% rates.
The Government have said that the retention of the higher rates for residential property is intended to provide an incentive for investment in business over property. Entrepreneurs relief will remain at 10 %, and will be extended to investors. I shall return to those reliefs, about which the Opposition have some concerns, later in my speech. The changes will take effect on 6 April 2016.
As the Committee will know, Labour Members have a serious problem with this policy decision, which they opposed during the Budget debate and on Second Reading. It constitutes a major tax giveaway to the tune of £2.7 billion over the next five years for the wealthiest in our society, at a time when the poorest communities are crying out for help and investment. The Chancellor had a choice to make in his Budget. He had to decide whether to use any spare cash, of which he keeps saying there is none, to help the most vulnerable, who have suffered six years of the Government’s austerity programme, or to give a tax break to those who need it the least. He chose the latter, and, in the Opposition’s view, that says it all about the Government’s priorities.
The explanatory notes state that
“the Government wants to ensure that companies have the opportunity to access the capital they need to grow and create jobs, and wants the next generation to be backed by a strong investment culture.”
Opposition Members want capital investment in our economy. Indeed, we champion it and we have been saying so for more than nine months. However, we question whether cutting the headline rate of capital gains tax will indeed trigger large-scale investment. We believe that it could simply line the pockets of some of the wealthiest.
The Chartered Institute of Taxation echoes those concerns, stating that
“the intention of the reduction is stated as being to drive productivity growth across the UK, but we question whether a simple reduction in rates will stimulate growth”.
The Office for Budget Responsibility’s economic and fiscal outlook document suggests that such a cut is unlikely to put rocket boosters under business investment, having not predicted massive increases over the next five years. What is more, business itself has not been calling for this measure, which was totally unexpected. The top priority for business is investment in skills and infrastructure, not cuts in the top-line rate of taxation—especially when the headline rates are frequently chopped and changed by the Chancellor in what Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, describes as an
“up and down rollercoaster ride”.
He also stated that
“we need a serious plan and strategy here. This is not the way to make good tax policy”.
In the current economic climate, given the result last Thursday, it is even more vital to provide as much certainty as possible to business on the rates of tax that they will pay. Given the serious risk of recession in the latter end of this year, I again make the point that £2.7 billion is a lot of money that could be put to better use. The Opposition will not support such an unfair measure, and we will oppose this clause standing part of the Bill.
Clauses 73 to 75 relate to entrepreneurs relief, which provides a rate of capital gains tax of 10% on any gains accrued when directors who own 5% or more of a company sell shares in the companies they own, up to a lifetime limit of £10 million. The clauses address some issues with the legislation that was introduced in the Finance Act 2015. According to the Government’s explanatory notes to the Bill, changes in that Act
“prevented certain abuses involving ER, but they also limited the availability of relief on some transactions where there was no abuse. The effect of the changes made by this clause are backdated to the introduction of FA 2015 in order to mitigate the disadvantage suffered by some as a result of earlier changes.”
Opposition Members have no issue with the content of the clauses, and we are pleased that the Government have tabled amendments to correct the poor drafting of the original ones. The Chartered Institute of Taxation had raised some concerns about that, so we are pleased that the Government have clarified the legislation.
However, the Opposition are concerned about entrepreneurs relief as a whole and we have therefore proposed, in new clause 11, that the Government produce a report within six months of the passing of this Bill giving the Treasury’s assessment of the value for money provided by entrepreneurs relief. The relief was estimated to cost £2 billion in 2012-13, rising to £3 billion in 2015-16. That represents a vast amount of Government revenue that is being forgone, and there appears to be no assessment of the relief’s efficacy in encouraging entrepreneurialism. We understand the rationale behind it, but as with all tax reliefs, the Government must ask themselves whether it provides value for money and whether it works in practice.
Tax Research UK’s analysis of the relief suggests that in the 2013-14 financial year, 3,000 people received tax relief to the tune of £600,000 each, at a total cost to the Treasury of £1.8 billion. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the case and tell us whether the Treasury has the relevant figures for 2014-15? That analysis also highlighted a couple of issues with the logic behind the relief itself, arguing that it is given at a time when people cease to be entrepreneurs by selling their businesses, and that it therefore does not encourage entrepreneurialism. It also argues that the relief has unfortunate behavioural consequences because by increasing the reward from sale it encourages sale far too early. The Opposition therefore feel that an assessment of the relief is in order given the vast amount of forgone Government revenue, which appears to be concentrated in the hands of a small number of individuals. I noted the Minister’s earlier comments and look forward to the results of the Government’s research, due to be published in 2017.
Finance Bill
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Damian Hinds)
Clauses 132 to 136 set out changes to the climate change levy, or CCL, which is a tax levied on the supply of energy to businesses and the public sector. It was introduced in 2001 to incentivise industrial and commercial energy efficiency. The Finance Act 2015 removed the climate change levy exemption for renewable electricity generated on or after 1 August 2015. A consultation was then held to seek views from industry on the appropriate length of time for the transitional period.
Clause 132 sets the length of the transitional period during which electricity suppliers can continue to exempt from the climate change levy renewably sourced energy generated before 1 August 2015. The clause provides for an end date for the transitional period of 31 March 2018. Setting a transitional period will minimise the administrative impact on electricity suppliers by giving them time to retain the benefit of renewably sourced electricity acquired before the date of the change.
Following a review of the business energy tax landscape and consultation with industry, it was announced at Budget 2016 that the Government would abolish the complex and unduly burdensome carbon reduction commitment energy efficiency scheme and move to a single tax—the existing climate chance levy—from 2019. Moving to one tax will provide a clearer price signal for business energy use, incentivising energy efficiency while reducing administrative burdens.
Clauses 133 and 134 set the main rates of the CCL from 1 April 2017 and 1 April 2018 to increase by the retail prices index. Legislating for those increases now provides certainty for businesses before the wider business energy market reforms take place.
Clause 135 will increase the climate change levy rates above RPI from 1 April 2019, to recover the revenue that will be lost from abolishing the CRC. Increasing climate change levy rates will strengthen the incentive for businesses with the greatest potential to save energy. At the same time, rebalancing the rates for different taxable commodities from 1 April 2019 will update an outdated ratio and more closely reflect the carbon content of the energy used. That will help to deliver on our commitment to achieve greater carbon savings.
Clause 136 will increase the levy discount for energy intensive sectors with climate change agreements. That will ensure that businesses in those sectors will pay no more in the climate change levy than the expected RPI increase in April 2019, thereby enabling them to maintain their international competitiveness. Those reforms will take place in 2019, providing a three-year lead-in time for businesses to adjust to the new business energy tax landscape.
Several hon. Members have in the past voiced concern over the impact of the clause to remove the climate change levy exemption from renewably sourced electricity, so allow me, if you will, Sir Roger, to repeat the reasoning for the removal of that exemption. There is no doubt that the exemption was increasingly providing poor value for money for British taxpayers. Without action, the exemption would have cost almost £4 billion over the course of this Parliament, providing only indirect support to renewable generators.
Other Government support for UK low-carbon generators demonstrates this Government’s commitment to renewable energy. Since 2010, nearly £52 billion has been invested in renewables, and that has led to a trebling of the UK’s renewable electricity capacity. There was another record year in 2015, with £13 billion invested in renewable electricity. Removing the exemption will provide better value for money for UK taxpayers, contribute to fiscal consolidation and maintain the climate change levy price signal necessary to incentivise business energy efficiency.
The Government’s consultation with industry showed that the current business energy tax landscape was too burdensome and complex. Clauses 132 to 136 demonstrate the Government’s commitment to simplify and improve the effectiveness of business energy taxes in order to meet our environmental targets.
Amendment 183 stands in the name of the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) on behalf of the Opposition. If I may pause for a moment, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate her on her elevation today. It is an extremely well-deserved promotion and we wish her all the best in her new role. On this occasion, however, I am afraid that her amendment has slightly less merit. It would require the Chancellor to publish a report detailing the impact of the climate change levy in reducing carbon emissions within 12 months from the passing of the Finance Bill, but such a review is unnecessary.
Following a hearing on the 2015 summer Budget, the Chancellor wrote to the Treasury Committee on the impact of the removal of the CCL exemption. He made it clear that the exemption would not directly affect our commitment to reduce carbon emissions. In addition, the Department of Energy and Climate Change already intends to publish a consultation on a simplified energy and carbon reporting framework later this year. That will be accompanied by an impact assessment, which will examine the removal of the carbon reduction commitment and propose adjustments to reporting requirements.
The impact of ending the exemption from the climate change levy for renewable electricity has been discussed at length over the course of debates. It has been confirmed to Parliament in writing by the Chancellor that removal of the exemption will not impact on the UK’s ability to meet its carbon budget targets. I therefore urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment, but should she be minded not to do so, I urge the Committee to reject it.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his kind comments and for being a fantastic duelling partner in these debates. He has been nothing less than respectful and I have enjoyed debating with him.
I rise to speak to clauses 132 to 136, which make various changes to the climate change levy, and to amendment 183, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) and for Leeds East (Richard Burgon).
Clause 132 relates to the removal of the exemption for electricity from renewable sources. Since the climate change levy’s inception in 2001, electricity from renewable sources has been exempt when supplied under a renewable source contract agreed between an energy supplier and its customer. In Budget 2015, the Chancellor announced that that exemption for renewable electricity would be removed from 1 August 2015 and that there would be a
“transitional period for suppliers...to claim the CCL exemption on any renewable electricity that was generated before that date.”
Following an informal consultation, which received 18 responses, the Government announced that the transitional period would end on 31 March 2018, legislated for in this Finance Bill.
The House will be aware that we, along with several Government Members, opposed the removal of that exemption in the Finance Act 2015, and we maintain that position. We will therefore abstain on the clause, but I would like the Minister to address one particular point. In answer to written questions, the Government have refused to publish a summary of responses to the informal consultation, as they contained “commercially sensitive information”, and they refuse to publish an average of suggested timescales. Will the Minister give us an assurance that the length of the transitional period was, in fact, in line with the recommendations of the respondents?
Clauses 133 and 134 will increase the main rates of the climate change levy in line with inflation in April 2017 and again in April 2018. It has been standard practice to increase the rates in line with inflation in each year’s Finance Bill since 2007 and, as the explanatory notes set out, wider changes to the CCL from 2019 are being legislated for in this Bill, so it makes sense to make provision for the next two years at the same time.
Those wider changes are the subject of clause 135, which significantly increases the main rates of the climate change levy to recover Exchequer revenue lost from the abolition of the carbon reduction commitment. In doing so, the ratio of electricity to gas is rebalanced somewhat to 2.5:1, and it is the Government’s intention to rebalance the ratio further to 1:1 by 2025, to reflect the fall in gas prices and the expected increase in consumption as a result.
The following clause increases the CCL discount available to energy intensive businesses subject to climate change agreements, to compensate equivalently for the increase to the main rates. The CCL discount for electricity will increase from 90% to 93%, and the discount for gas will increase from 65% to 78% from 1 April 2019. That provision mitigates a knock-on effect from clause 135.
Our amendment to clause 135 would require the Government to conduct a review of the impact of the climate change levy on carbon emissions. The review will have particular reference to the removal of the exemption for electricity generated from renewable sources, the abolition of the carbon reduction commitment and the reporting requirements for companies and public sector bodies.
Draft Building Societies (Floating Charges and Other Provisions) order 2016
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(8 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, Ms Buck, and to debate with the Minister for the first time, especially on such an important issue. I share her sentiment that the draft order is technical and uncontroversial. I understand that our counterparts in the Lords spent only 13 minutes discussing it. She will be pleased to hear that I do not propose to take much longer.
As the Minister eloquently stated, the draft order is simply required as a result of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, which repealed the restriction on building societies to create floating charges. That came directly as a result of changes in insolvency law by virtue of the Enterprise Act 2002, which removed the ability of a creditor to appoint an administrative receiver pursuant to a floating charge. There were exceptions, of course—for example, certain large financial transactions and holders of floating charges created before the relevant sections of the 2002 Act came into effect.
The previous position for building societies was, as the Building Societies Association has stated,
“contrary to the mutual model of ownership”,
as it would allow an administrative receiver to be appointed over the whole or a substantial part of a company’s property should a floating charge be enforced. A receiver is usually appointed to enforce the terms of a floating charge only, and as such has limited access to any other assets held by the relevant company. The draft order will therefore allow the appointment of a receiver in relation to a floating charge if enforcement becomes necessary, so ensuring, as we have heard, uniform provision about receivers for banks, building societies and other companies.
The Building Societies Association informs us that the changes we are discussing recognise the landscape and reality that building societies are operating in and that secured funding is an accepted and flexible funding tool that is far more commonplace and necessary now than when the Building Societies Act 1986 was passed. However, it has confirmed that it is interested in seeing further changes to the 1986 Act. First, it suggests an increase, reflecting inflation, in the payment amount a society can make from a deceased person’s savings account, subject to evidence and a statutory declaration that the person claiming funds is entitled to do so. Secondly, it suggests an amendment in the requirement for mutuals to produce a strategic report as part of their annual report, so that those are exempt from Financial Conduct Authority promotion rules. It has raised those matters with the Treasury directly, and I would therefore be grateful if the Minister updated the Committee.
To conclude, as the Minister has illustrated, the changes proposed in the draft order complement the Government’s commitment to ensuring that mutual bodies are enabled to compete on a level playing field with banks. That is something the Opposition certainly support and that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) raised when we discussed the appropriate clause on diversity in financial services during the consideration of the Bank of England and Financial Services Act 2016. We look forward to returning to such matters in the near future, particularly upon final publication of the Competition and Markets Authority’s report into retail banking this summer. However, for the moment, we will contain our excitement and support the draft order.
Oral Answers to Questions
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
Recent figures showed a 9.6% drop in the value of new construction project starts recorded in the so-called northern powerhouse to the end of 2015. Interestingly, despite the Chancellor’s rhetoric on investment, much of the public capital invested thus far has been delivered by the EU. Does he therefore disagree with the Minister with responsibility for the northern powerhouse, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), who said recently that Brexit will not affect Greater Manchester’s vision and access to funding?
Mr Osborne
As the hon. Lady well knows, I certainly believe that Britain is stronger in the European Union, and that it helps the northern powerhouse, but I make this observation: investment projects in the north of England are up over 100% in the last two years, which is in striking contrast to other areas. To give a sense of scale, investment projects in London are up 7% in the last two years. That is welcome, but in the northern powerhouse, they are up 127%. We are rebalancing the economic geography of this country. I am sure she will welcome the fact that the north of England now has the highest employment rate in the country’s history, and that we have seen the fastest falls in unemployment in the north of England.
Oral Answers to Questions
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damian Hinds
The tariffs are designed to make sure that there is a reasonable and appropriate return to investors. They have to be adjusted periodically when costs come down. Of course, one of the great parts of the success story of solar is the fact that costs have come down by about two thirds since 2010.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
According to the Solar Trade Association:
“Government will be spending just 1% of new expenditure under the Levy Control Framework supporting solar power…yet mainstream analysts expect solar power to dominate future energy supply.”
With that in mind, will the Chancellor promise to do much more to ensure that Britain becomes a market leader in the industry, or are we going to let China take the lead yet again?
Damian Hinds
Britain does have a leadership position in the industry, but we need a balance. We need a portfolio of energy sources and to recognise the importance of baseload power. That is why the development of new nuclear is also so important.
Scotch Whisky Industry
Rebecca Long Bailey Excerpts(8 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called 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)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon, and it is a pleasure, as always, to debate opposite the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury. I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) on securing the debate. In his opening speech, he eloquently explained why the Scotch whisky industry is so important to the Scottish and UK economies and why his constituency is the centre of the whisky universe.
I thank hon. Members for taking part in the debate, which I have really enjoyed. I feel as if I have had a bit of a history lesson. A few points that I was not aware of before include: that Talisker was Robert Louis Stevenson’s favourite drink; that Arran has the purest water in Scotland; and that Alexander Fleming’s advice was to drink whisky, which I now take as medical advice. Other fantastic things have been mentioned but I will not go into detail because we are pushed for time.
There was a consensus across all contributions that, beyond doubt, the Scottish whisky industry contributes significantly to the UK economy. A number of hon. Members raised points about excise duty. Of course, we all look forward to hearing what the Chancellor has to say about that next week and whether the Minister is willing to leak any information on that.
The Scotch Whisky Association, which supplied a very useful briefing in preparation for the debate, estimates that the industry added more than £3.3 billion directly to the UK economy and more than £5 billion indirectly in 2014. That makes the Scotch whisky industry arguably larger than the UK’s iron, steel, shipbuilding and computer industries, and about half the size of the UK’s pharmaceutical and aerospace industries in terms of gross value added. It is important to note that the industry just keeps growing. The 2014 figures mark an increase of 1.6% on the previous year’s estimates of GVA.
The contribution of the industry is equally impressive when one considers the number of people it employs. In Scotland, 10,800 people are directly employed in the industry, with salaries totalling almost £530 million. Across the whole of the UK, both directly and indirectly, the association estimates that 40,000 jobs are supported. Any industry that provides employment to so many should indeed be recognised as an important UK industry.
Nor is that significant only in Scotland. The impact on the wider UK supply chain is also important, as we have heard in many of the speeches today. Of the nearly £2 billion spent by the industry, 90% remains within the UK. The latest input-output data published by the Scottish Government, and industry estimates, show that about three quarters of the goods and services purchased outside Scotland are sourced from the rest of the UK, and that they are worth about £330 million to the suppliers. That is particularly significant in relation to capital expenditure worth about £140 million, much of it on items such as machinery and vehicles that support the wider industry.
Constituencies such as mine, with its history of manufacturing and other traditional industry, stand to benefit from the Scotch whisky trade, despite our distance from Scotland. We have heard Yorkshire’s point of view in the debate, and I think there is agreement on that point. Greater Manchester has a longstanding and proud brewing and distilling sector of its own—not to mention a blossoming boutique sector, in which I am becoming an expert. Whisky distilling, along with much of the drinks sector, is effectively a manufacturing industry itself, and the debate should be set within the wider one about the need for an industrial strategy.
One of Scotch whisky’s distinctions is that it is famous the world over, and is one of the largest contributors to UK exports. Scotch whisky exports were worth £3.9 billion in 2014—1.4% of total UK exports. That represents 80% of Scotland’s and 25% of the UK’s total food and drink exports. Scotch whisky’s trade surplus is the second highest for any goods exported from the UK, and it has been estimated that the UK’s overall trade deficit would be 16% higher without Scotch whisky exports. I think that that fact has also been alluded to today. However, it must be noted that, while the £3.9 billion is significant, that figure marked a decline of 7%—the largest since 1998.
It has been suggested by commentators that that fall in exports might be due to the political and economic situation in export markets. For example, David Frost, the Scotch Whisky Association’s chief executive, suggested that
“economic and political factors in some important markets held back exports in 2014 after a decade of strong growth”.
Similarly, the drinks analyst at the market intelligence firm Euromonitor has highlighted the fact that the
“fall in exports to Singapore was linked to Beijing’s clampdown on gift-giving”,
noting that direct exports to China fell by 23% to £39 million. He also said that Scotch was losing out to types of whisky like US bourbon, which are targeted at a younger market. Political volatility in Russia and Ukraine is also reported to be having an effect on exports of Scotch
“with the value of direct sales there down 95% from £25 million to £2 million in a single year”.
In that context, we would be interested to hear from the Minister what steps the Government are taking to ensure that our key export industries are able to cope with volatilities in the global market. What help are they giving the industry in its ambassadorial role abroad? For example, DEFRA’s Great British food unit was created to promote British food and drink—such as Yorkshire Tea, the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) will be pleased to hear—across the world. Could the Minister confirm whether Scotch whisky is currently included in the Great British food unit and, if so, how the initiative has helped the industry?
It is important to highlight the wider context of UK manufacturing. Frankly, I am concerned that this Government’s industrial strategy is inadequate across the board, as the problems with the steel industry have illustrated all too starkly. That is why we have been calling for a proper industrial strategy, in the context of a wider economic policy focused on investment, not cuts. Scotch whisky is one industry that by its nature cannot be outsourced abroad but, in other ways, it will face many of the same challenges as we see across the UK in other manufacturing sectors.
The last time the Scotch whisky industry was discussed in Westminster Hall, the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, now the Education Secretary, stated that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs would
“shortly be launching its spirit drinks verification scheme.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2014; Vol. 573, c. 138WH.]
The scheme was designed to preserve the industry’s reputation by requiring every business involved in the production of Scotch whisky to be verified as producing a genuine product. The introduction of the scheme was broadly welcomed at the time, but it might be useful for the Government to provide an update on its operation to date. Is the Minister satisfied that it has been implemented in full?
The UK should be proud of the Scotch whisky industry, which contributes enormously to employment and boosts UK exports at a time when the trade deficit remains large. I therefore hope that the Minister can respond to the issues that I and other hon. Members have raised, so that we can continue to back this important global industry.