Draft Payment Accounts (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
Robert Jenrick Excerpts(5 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Payment Accounts (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
There is no better way to round off the year than with another statutory instrument. As the Committee will be aware, the Treasury has been undertaking a programme of legislation to ensure that if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period, there continues to be a functioning legislative and regulatory regime for financial services in the UK. This instrument will fix deficiencies in UK law on the regulation of payment accounts. The approach taken in the instrument aligns with that taken in other SIs being laid under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018—providing continuity by maintaining existing legislation at the point of exit, but amending it where necessary to ensure that it works effectively in a no-deal context.
The payment accounts directive had three main objectives: to improve the transparency and comparability of fees related to payment accounts; to facilitate switching of those accounts; and to ensure access to payment accounts with basic features for all EU residents. The Payment Accounts Regulations 2015 transposed that directive into UK law. Colleagues will be familiar with payment accounts—they are the day-to-day bank or building society accounts we all use to make and receive payments and to withdraw and deposit cash. In the UK, the most common form of payment account is of course a current account.
In a no-deal scenario, the UK would be outside the EU’s legal, supervisory and financial regulatory framework. The 2015 regulations therefore need to be updated to ensure that the provisions work appropriately in that scenario. These draft regulations are mostly concerned with removing EU references, so the impact on consumers and businesses will be minimal. However, I will go into a little more detail about the changes governing payment accounts with basic features—“basic bank accounts”, as they are more commonly known in the UK—because the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the House of Lords Grand Committee drew particular attention to them.
It is important to emphasise that the draft regulations retain the requirement for the UK’s nine largest current account providers to provide basic bank accounts free of charge, in sterling, to customers legally resident in the UK, regardless of their nationality, if they do not hold a current account at a UK bank or are not eligible for a standard current account. However, as the UK will no longer be part of the EU’s single market in financial services after exit day, the instrument removes the requirement on those nine basic bank account providers to offer those products to customers resident in the EU or to offer EU currency services as a standard feature on any basic bank account.
It will be at the discretion of the nine providers whether to continue to offer basic bank accounts to customers resident in the EU after exit day, or to keep existing basic bank accounts of EU residents open. Although firms will no longer be compelled to provide non-sterling services on basic bank accounts, conversations with the industry suggest that they are very unlikely to withdraw those services.
The SLSC and Members in Grand Committee in the other place asked for reassurances that, should the nine providers choose to close the bank accounts of customers resident in the EU, those customers would not be placed in financial difficulty as a result. There was particular concern that although that might not affect many customers, it could have a significant impact on the small number of individuals affected. Taking into account the comments made in the Lords debate, I will explain briefly why the Government do not expect that these changes will significantly disadvantage customers.
First, the nine providers must give customers at least two months’ written notice if they plan to close an account, which should give customers adequate notice to open another account. Secondly, a customer’s right to a basic bank account is EU-wide, so customers should be able to open another basic bank account in the member state in which they reside. To be clear, the right of access to a basic bank account depends on residency alone, not nationality.
Under the 2014 payment accounts directive, a customer legally resident in the EU, regardless of their nationality, still has the legal right of access to a basic bank account within the EU. What may change is the cross-border right of access to a basic bank account, which under this SI will no longer be mandated on the UK side because the UK will no longer be part of the single market.
The Treasury worked very closely with the Financial Conduct Authority and the Payment Systems Regulator when drafting the regulations. It has engaged the financial services industry and leading consumer groups, and of course it will continue to do so.
In summary, the Government believe that the draft regulations are necessary to ensure that the Payment Accounts Regulations 2015 continue to function appropriately if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period. Most importantly, they mean that fee-free basic bank accounts, which are a key financial inclusion product, will remain robustly regulated and available to all eligible customers legally resident in the UK. I hope colleagues will join me in supporting the draft regulations, and I commend them to the Committee.
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Oxford East, and for Glasgow Central, for their comments. I will try to respond to as many as possible.
As we have heard, it is only prudent of the Government to make sensible contingency plans for no deal. Frankly, I would be surprised if any hon. Member did not wish us to do so, given that, although our preference is to leave with a deal, leaving without one is the default position—it is the legal position—and is entirely possible, if not necessarily desirable. In this statutory instrument, we are making modest preparations to ensure that equivalent provisions are in place in the event of no deal.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
It is interesting; if the Opposition Members who have been protesting actually supported the deal, we would not be in this situation and would not have to worry about this. I must use this opportunity to congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, because I understood every word she said.
Robert Jenrick
Well, let me answer the questions asked by the hon. Member for Oxford East. She mentioned the gap in reporting between exit day and 2022. That is because the Money Advice Service reports to the Treasury, which then reports to the European Commission, and it is that provision that is deficient. I assure the hon. Lady that there are no changes to the requirement for the Money Advice Service to host a price comparison website—that has already been launched—so to answer the question that she perfectly understably asked, there should not be an issue.
There is no reduction in the requirement for transparency on fees. The only change is that the FCA is taking over responsibility for the regulation of the documents from the European Banking Authority. We have of course worked with the FCA, so I can say in answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central that it is willing and ready to take on those responsibilities.
On the wider question about UK citizens living in the EU27, we expect the number of individuals affected by the measure to be very small. We have had conversations with banks on the arrangements that we will put in place; the hon. Member for Oxford East mentioned the subject. It is worth remembering, as I said in my opening remarks, that any individual legally resident in an EU27 country will have the right, under EU law, to access a basic bank account in that country. If they had been using their basic bank account from the United Kingdom solely, and then no longer had access to that—an unlikely scenario, and one that would affect a very small number of individuals—they could, as of right, open a basic bank account in the country in which they are legally resident. We see no reason why they would not be able to do that.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, but surely the question is not whether certain people would become completely unbanked as a result of the changes, but whether they could still carry out the kind of transactions that are very difficult to do, in whatever country, unless one has a domestic bank account. If one does not, it can be very difficult to pay certain kinds of bills and make certain kinds of transactions and so on—and there are normally additional charges involved.
Robert Jenrick
Those people would be able to open a bank account in the UK at the commercial discretion of a UK bank. We do not think there will be many, if any, examples of individuals having their bank account withdrawn, but of course it is technically possible that a bank might choose to do that. We think it is unlikely that these individuals would continue to use their UK-based bank account as their sole current account. If, say, a Spanish student came to study in the United Kingdom, opened a UK basic bank account and then returned to Spain, it would be a costly bank account for them to continue to use as their current account, because they would have to pay currency charges whenever they transferred money. The situation that the hon. Lady alludes to would apply only in a limited number of circumstances. I take her point that there could be such circumstances, but we do not think there will be a substantial number.
It is worth remembering that our duty in this instance—I am sure the hon. Lady would support this—is to maintain equivalence, not make policy changes. We are ensuring that any individual resident in the UK will have access to a basic bank account, but we are not making a change to ensure that UK citizens resident in third countries can have access to a UK basic bank account; that would be a policy change, because it would of course be applicable beyond the EU27 to any country in the world in which a UK citizen might choose to reside. I hope that she is reassured that our intention is to act within the confines of the law—not to go beyond it and take action that might apply to a British citizen resident in, for example, Canada or the United States who wished to maintain or open a UK basic bank account.
The hon. Lady also asked a question about consumer organisations and industry consultation. In drafting the statutory instrument, the Treasury engaged confidentially with industry representatives to make them aware of these changes, and to allow them the opportunity to comment on any of them. We have not received any queries or comments on the proposed changes from those groups, or from any consumer groups, since publication, so we can only assume that they are content, but of course we will continue to work, and to be open to comments, should any come forward in the weeks and months ahead.
I think that I have answered most of the questions posed by the—
Anneliese Dodds
The Minister is being very generous with his time. I believe that I asked when the impact assessment would be forthcoming.
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and I will come on to that as my final comment. First, I will answer what I think was the final comment from the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, in respect of potential discrimination against EU nationals resident in the UK. What she suggests is not the case under this statutory instrument. Any resident of the United Kingdom who is legally resident in the United Kingdom will have access to a basic bank account, just as they would if they were living elsewhere in the EU.
Alison Thewliss
This is the very point that I was making, though. The issue is the “legally resident” part. I have many non-EU national constituents who end up in dispute with the Home Office, and who could fall foul of being not seen to be legally resident. The Government are now throwing EU nationals into that pot as well, and there is every risk that they could be not legally resident in the eyes of the bank or in the eyes of the Home Office. That is the problem with this situation.
Robert Jenrick
With respect, the hon. Lady is not correct. The position under this statutory instrument will be exactly the same as the position today. Anyone legally resident in an EU country and anyone legally resident in the United Kingdom after exit day will have access to a basic bank account, so nobody will be disadvantaged as a result of the SI. The Treasury is working very carefully to ensure, for example, that bank accounts are available to those who are homeless and to ex-offenders as they leave prison. The Government are working carefully with difficult and vulnerable groups to ensure that they have basic bank accounts, but people must be legally resident in the UK. It goes without saying that we cannot legislate for those people who are illegal. We have to work on the premise that this will apply only to those who are legally resident in the UK, just as the existing EU rules do.
The hon. Member for Oxford East asked about the impact assessment. We have prepared an impact assessment, as she would expect, and we hope to publish it shortly. The impact assessment is with the Regulatory Policy Committee for consideration, along with a series of other statutory instruments. Together, they form the second tranche of statutory instruments coming from the Treasury. This is the first one, as I understand it, from that tranche that has come before the House. We will publish the assessment once the committee’s opinion has been received. We have tried to ensure that impact assessments have completed all the usual processes in time to be published before debates, but that has not always been possible, for the reasons that the hon. Lady helpfully gave. The sheer quantity of statutory instruments coming forward is placing pressure not just on the civil service, but on the Regulatory Policy Committee, which is a relatively small organisation. These statutory instruments are being prepared at pace, to ensure that we have a robust stand-alone regime in place before March 2019.
This statutory instrument is needed to ensure that consumers in the UK continue to benefit from the regulation of the payment account market, and that the legislation functions appropriately if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period. I hope that the Committee has found this afternoon’s sitting informative and will join me in supporting the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Robert Jenrick Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
The Government’s investment in sport is delivered through Sport England, which has invested £9 million in sport and physical activity in Cornwall since 2013, including £3 million for sports facilities.
Derek Thomas
Dare I say, Mr Speaker, that your tie today is a fine one?
The Minister will be aware that I have been working with stakeholders in Cornwall for 10 years now to deliver a stadium for Cornwall. A stadium is not only about sport, although we should celebrate Cornish sport, it is also about the health and wellbeing of children and adults right across the county of Cornwall. We have been working hard and we are nearly there with the money; what more can the Treasury do to deliver on this fantastic opportunity?
Robert Jenrick
I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned for a new stadium for Cornwall since even before he was elected. At his instigation, I met the Cornwall Council officer responsible for the project last week. With the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, we will continue to work closely with partners in Cornwall and Sport England to seek a means to bring this exciting project to a successful conclusion. We appreciate that, as the most remote team on the mainland, the Cornish Pirates deserve a fitting home for the future.
Robert Jenrick
That was very tenuous. Once a new stadium has been built in Truro, perhaps people will not need to go to Plymouth to support Argyle. We are supporting grassroots sports in several ways—for example, the soft drinks industry levy has ensured that more than £500 million of additional funding has gone into school sport and into the health and wellbeing schemes that are delivered, along with breakfast clubs, in our primary schools.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
The Government meet regularly with the airline industry to discuss a range of issues, including the future of air passenger duty and the domestic aviation market. I met a number of UK-based airlines earlier in autumn prior to the Budget.
Sir Hugo Swire
I make no apologies for continuing to lobby Treasury Ministers on the iniquity of air passenger duty and the discriminatory application of it to Flybe, based in my constituency at Exeter airport, which is the UK’s largest domestic carrier. Will the Treasury look again at Flybe and its particular set of circumstances?
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend is nothing if not persistent, but we are not able to vary air passenger duty under EU state aid rules for different regions of the United Kingdom, including the south-west. That will change, or may, depending on the final state of things once we have left the European Union, but we have taken action in government: we have frozen short-haul rates for eight years in a row and exempted children going on family holidays, including to the south-west.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his response. He is well aware of the issue for Northern Ireland—the disadvantage that we have and the advantage that the Republic of Ireland has. Dublin airport has grown tremendously over the last period of time, so has he had any opportunity to speak to those in charge of Belfast International airport or Belfast City airport to gauge their opinion on how we can grow the economy?
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary visited Northern Ireland earlier in the year and met representatives of the aviation sector. We announced at the Budget that we will be proceeding with a technical working group to look into and analyse further the remaining issues with respect to the hon. Gentleman’s proposal to devolve air passenger duty in Northern Ireland.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
This Government are determined to make the UK the best place in the world to start a business. We are keeping taxes low and helping businesses and entrepreneurs to access the support that they need. We have cut corporation tax to the lowest rate in the G20 and made changes to business rates that will be worth over £13 billion by 2023.
Jack Brereton
I thank the Minister for that response. Walker’s Nonsuch, a family business in my constituency since 1894 and England’s finest toffee producer, enthusiastically welcomed the increased annual investment allowance. Does he agree that it is essential to continue to reduce tax on companies so that they invest in new equipment, increase productivity and create more jobs?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. While the Labour party wants to increase taxes on business, including on small businesses, we are cutting them, and the increased annual investment allowance will enable businesses such as the one in his constituency to invest in plant, machinery and new technology to drive it to future success.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The broken business rates system is having a seriously detrimental impact on our high streets, and that is seen right across York. Will the Minister meet me and York Retail Forum to discuss the impact it is having on York and, in particular, the proposals it wants to see on turnover tax?
Robert Jenrick
I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady. We announced in the Budget that 90% of smaller retailers, including many in her constituency, would see a 30% reduction in their business rates, and the future high streets fund is designed exactly for communities such as the one she represents.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that keeping the VAT threshold at £85,000 demonstrates that the Government are firmly on the side of West Oxfordshire’s small businesses?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The VAT threshold in this country is high by international standards. We have retained it at that level to support small businesses, which this Government will always champion.
James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
Small businesses and subcontractors are still carrying the can for the collapse of Carillion. In the light of Interserve’s latest trouble, can the Minister update us on his Department’s liaison with it as a client, and say what level of risk the taxpayer and small businesses have been put to by Interserve’s latest attempts to stay afloat by refinancing its debt for equity?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Gentleman raises an important question. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office is working closely on this matter, as he did with respect to Carillion. We want a wider base of companies supplying the Government and the public sector, to ensure that we have a resilient public sector in the eventuality that such situations happen again.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
Finance (No. 3) Bill (Eighth sitting)
Robert Jenrick Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Clive Lewis
Thank you, Mr Howarth, for that clarification, which was clearly needed.
As I was saying, it would be neither socially fair nor environmentally effective if ordinary people taking occasional family holidays or visiting relatives abroad were made the priority for any policy designed to curb demand growth. Therefore, as amendments 120 and 121 would provide, the Government need to make an assessment of the distributional impact of increasing aviation tax rates on specific groups who could be disproportionately affected.
The Opposition fully accept that, ultimately, APD may not be the right instrument to bring aviation growth into line with the planning assumption of the Committee on Climate Change. However, without the reviews we are calling for in amendments 120 and 121, it will be all but impossible to know whether it can play a role, or whether there are better alternatives. There have, for instance, been proposals for a per-plane tax, which would more closely link taxation to carbon emissions, and be a better incentive for more efficient use of passenger capacity in planes. Alternatively, there could be a frequent flyer levy designed to protect access to a reasonable amount of flying for low-income households, while targeting the most frequent flyers with an incrementally rising tax, thus addressing the elasticity of demand for air travel in relation to low prices or high income—or the fact that the key determinant of the propensity to fly is income, not ticket price.
I take no view of those options today, because we simply need to understand more about how they would work; but that is precisely why we need the Government to undertake formal assessments that allow us to compare the impact of potential options on the factors set out in the amendment. Small changes in price have little impact on demand for flights, so increasing the cost of flights to a level that exerts significant downward pressure on demand is difficult to do fairly via the taxes that the clause deals with, and could mean pricing the poor out of the skies when the richest air travellers cause most of the environmental damage. In any event, without the Government carrying out the necessary assessments, which our amendments would require, we cannot know what APD rates are required to meet the planning assumption of the Committee on Climate Change, or the relative efficacy of APD and alternative fiscal approaches, such as a per-plane tax or a frequent flyer levy, for achieving this policy goal.
Let me end with a sobering fact. As the widely respected naturalist David Attenborough warns the world at COP 24 that the collapse of our civilisation is on the horizon, the two largest aircraft manufacturers in the world—Boeing and Airbus—have more than 13,000 new fossil fuel-powered planes on order. Given the long operational lifespan of passenger jets, most of those planes will still be in the air in 2050, as will many of the 23,000 already in use. Given what is at stake, can the Minister, hand on heart, genuinely say that the Government’s policies, future techno-fixes aside, are really up to the existential challenge that we all face?
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
I will respond to as many comments as I can. I will come to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, but we agreed and legislated to devolve air passenger duty to the Scottish Government. The delay in so doing is unfortunate—it is not what we wished to happen—but it is a result of the Scottish Government’s asking us to postpone the implementation of devolution. They did so for the perfectly understandable reason that they wished to pursue the measure with respect to the highlands and islands, but it was essentially their decision, which we respected in agreeing to postpone the turning on of devolution, if that is the right phrase, at their suggestion.
Kirsty Blackman
Yes, but the UK Government were trying to hand APD over in such a way that the highlands and islands exemption would no longer exist, so it would have been completely deficient and would not have operated in the way we hoped or, presumably, the way it was intended to work when its devolution was first mooted.
Robert Jenrick
As I understand it, we handed it over in accordance with EU law. Negotiation has subsequently taken place between the Scottish Government and the EU, with the support of the UK Government, to try to find a satisfactory resolution. I assure the hon. Lady—I do not think she implied otherwise—that we are working as hard as we can to support the Scottish Government in that respect. In fact, my officials at the Treasury were in Edinburgh in the past couple of weeks to continue working with the Scottish Government in that regard. I hope she takes our assurance that we will continue to work productively together.
Because APD is essentially a devolved matter—although, as a result of the request, we have not yet turned it off—the Scottish Government could of course choose to carry out the review that the hon. Lady requests themselves. Alternatively, they could choose not to pursue the measure with respect to the highlands and islands and to continue with their plans for their own version of air passenger duty. I appreciate that they do not wish to do that. However, I hope that I can allay the hon. Lady’s concerns by saying we are going to work as closely as possible. I do not think a review by the United Kingdom Government is necessary when the Scottish Government could proceed with one if they wished.
The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Norwich South asked what evidence and reports we had, and what studies we had done, on the impact of reducing air passenger duty on Treasury receipts or its wider benefits to the economy and society. We reviewed the 2016 PwC report, which the hon. Lady may be aware of. We did not agree with all its conclusions in terms of cutting or abolishing APD. Its principal claim was that that would pay for itself, and we did not agree with that. APD raises £3.4 billion a year, so it is a significant revenue raiser for the Exchequer. Cutting it would put pressure on other public finances, although I appreciate that it would have some benefits in different parts of the country. Recently, our limited study on devolving air passenger duty for long-haul flights in Northern Ireland acknowledged that there could be some benefits, but it also raised a number of further questions and concerns that require further study.
The Department for Transport will publish its aviation strategy shortly. That will, I hope, answer some of the broader questions that the hon. Member for Norwich South asked about our long-term strategy and plan for this country, whether it is in technology, aviation and airport capacity or the environmental concerns he expressed.
Air passenger duty was never designed to be an environmental tax. One might argue that it could be used as an environmental tax, but that was never its primary purpose; it was a tax designed to raise revenue for the Exchequer to pay for public services. It is already the highest tax of its kind in Europe, and one of the highest in the world, so it is not clear whether increasing it substantially would make any significant difference, and doing so would, of course, come at significant cost to our competitiveness as a country. Many would like us to reduce the tax substantially, rather than to increase it materially, as the hon. Gentleman seems to suggest. I will come on to his point about the international perspective and the Chicago convention, and what progress the Government are making.
To summarise the clause, it makes changes to ensure that long-haul rates of air passenger duty for the tax year 2020-21 increase in line with the retail prices index. The change will ensure that the aviation sector continues to play its part in contributing towards funding public services. APD, as I have described, raises £3.4 billion in revenue annually, so it is an important part of our public finances. Aviation plays a crucial role in keeping Britain open for business, and the UK Government are keen to support its ongoing success. Passenger numbers travelling via UK airports have grown by more than 15% over the past five years, and the UK has the highest direct connectivity score in Europe, according to an Airports Council International Europe report. Of course, we continue to measure our competitiveness, and we want the UK to continue to have hub airports and to be as well connected to emerging markets as it can be.
The clause increases the long-haul reduced rate—economy class—by just £2; and it increases the standard rate, which is for all classes above economy, by £4. The rounding of APD rates to the nearest £1 means that short-haul rates will remain frozen for the eighth year in a row, which benefits about 80% of all airline passengers, including many of those whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned, who are on lower incomes and trying to enjoy cheaper holidays and less expensive business travel. The changes made by clause 60 will increase the long-haul APD rates for the tax year 2020-21 by RPI.
On amendments 120 and 121, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Norwich South for the Labour party, the Government recognise the importance of understanding the impact of changes to tax policy on the aviation industry. I reassure the Committee that that is done as a matter of course by the Government as we consider carefully how to proceed at every Budget. Furthermore, isolating the impact of APD on the areas highlighted in the amendments is challenging. It is better to consider such issues in a more holistic way.
As I have said, the upcoming aviation strategy to be published by the Department for Transport will be the opportunity to consider the aviation industry’s impact on and role in addressing issues in such areas. I encourage the hon. Gentleman and others who take an interest in those matters to pay careful attention to that. They will have the opportunity to scrutinise the Secretary of State for Transport and other Ministers following that.
On the issue of those at the higher end of the distributional scale, in Government we have tackled that through the introduction of the additional rate for private jets. The Government are confident that those flying in that way will now pay a fairer share of tax. We were the first Government to introduce the private jet rate, and the rate for individuals flying by private jet is six times that of someone flying in economy on a commercial jet.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for being willing to give way. He will probably remember that I asked for the concrete ways in which Government are engaging with international partners around that convention. I have not received any concrete details aside from the general aspiration to change things. Can he provide some details now?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Lady and I discussed this in a Westminster Hall debate earlier in the year. I believe I wrote to her afterwards to set this out, but perhaps she was not satisfied with the response. I am happy to revert to her with more information, but I made the point in that letter that the UK Government are committed to this, and we play a leading role internationally in discussing the future of the Chicago convention. As I also set out in the letter, several of the leading aviation nations—including the United States and Australia—have limited interest in changing the current regime, which makes it rather difficult to make the kind of progress that I suspect she would like us to make.
Anneliese Dodds
The Minister is being generous in giving way. It might help the Committee to know what meetings the Government have called, which Governments they have contacted to discuss the matter and what public pronouncements they have made on the subject. I have been unable to find evidence of any.
Robert Jenrick
I will write to the hon. Lady again to set out some of the information. I discussed the matter with my officials in preparing for this Committee, and they listed some of the international meetings they have attended, where they represented the United Kingdom exactly as she would like us to have done.
I hope I have addressed amendment 104 in my earlier comments. This is a matter that the Scottish Government could take forward themselves, given that we have already legislated for the devolution of APD. The impacts of any future reductions in Scotland are a matter for the Scottish Government, and they will clearly become more so once we proceed to the long-term arrangement that the hon. Lady wishes for.
The changes being made by clause 60 ensure that the aviation sector continues to play its part in contributing towards the funding of our vital public services, raising £3.4 billion a year. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Clive Lewis
I want to raise a couple of things before we vote on amendments 120 and 121. The Committee on Climate Change has clearly stated that we are heading towards a substantial breach of the generous headroom that has been provided for aviation in the UK. The Government are going to overshoot that, to use a pun. There is a pressing climate emergency on this planet. As we speak, millions of people—many of them in the world’s poorest countries—are already being affected by climate change. My dad is from Grenada, and he has retired there. People there, and in the West Indies generally, cannot get insurance as a result of the hurricanes that destroy vast swathes of the islands year in, year out, because of climate change. I feel as though we are hearing once again from the Government about business as usual, even though a climate emergency is taking place.
I understand the APD. It is not designed as an environmental tax or a demand management tool; it is a revenue raiser. Given that we find ourselves heading towards a breach of the headroom that the Committee on Climate Change has provided, surely the Government should be looking at ways to control and push down demand for flights, so that we can begin to make a real impact on our commitments to tackling climate change. Will the Minister tell the Committee whether he plans to join our French counterparts in lobbying for tax reform on kerosene, as they will shortly talk about with the EU Commission? It seems to me that the aviation industry has enjoyed these 70-year-old tax perks and is now an established sector, but one that has yet to fully play its part in tackling climate change. This country can show leadership on that, starting with the Treasury.
Robert Jenrick
Clause 63 makes changes to the definition of mineralogical processes in the climate change levy exemption for energy used in mineralogical and metallurgical processes, to ensure that the exemption remains operable following the UK’s departure from the EU. In response to representations, it also clarifies that tenants can benefit from the exemption where they are supplied with energy via a landlord.
The changes will come into effect following Royal Assent to the Bill. They are minor, technical changes designed to maintain the status quo and to provide continuity for businesses. Overall, we judge that they will have a negligible impact, as we set out in the relevant tax information impact note published in July.
The clause does two things. First, it removes “by a person” and “to a person” from the current wording of the exemption, to clarify that it is the energy used in mineralogical and metallurgical processes that qualifies for exemption, rather than the person carrying out the process, as the current drafting suggests. This means that all firms using energy to carry out these processes can claim the exemption. I believe this will be widely welcomed by those who have approached us previously.
Secondly, the clause replaces the reference to the energy taxation directive in the definition of mineralogical processes with a reference to the appropriate NACE code. These codes are an internationally recognised system for classifying economic activity and are of UN origin. This aligns the definition with the way metallurgical processes are defined, which already refers to NACE codes. I hope that is clear.
Amendments 124 and 128 would require the Government to assess the impact of these changes on small and medium-sized enterprises, tenants, revenue, carbon budgets and greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Amendment 127 would require the Government to publish an annual statement listing the companies that have benefited from these changes.
While the first change that the clause makes will have a negligible impact, as set out in the relevant tax information impact note earlier this year, the second change will have no impact on these businesses and sectors. Indeed, if we did not make these changes, there would be an impact as we leave the European Union.
Amendment 125 would require the Government to review the effect of these changes in both a no-deal and a negotiated exit from the EU. Amendment 126 would require the Government to review the effect of those changes on any divergence between the exemption in the UK and similar exemptions in the rest of the European Union. Both changes made by the clause will ensure the exemption continues to operate exactly as intended now and after the UK leaves the EU.
The changes introduced by the clause do not affect how the exemption works in the UK compared with other European countries; they apply equally while we remain in the EU, if we were to leave the EU with a negotiated deal or in the event that we leave with no deal. I therefore urge hon. Members to reject the amendments. The information required to fulfil the requests made in the amendments is either already in the published impact assessment or, for the reasons I have just described, unnecessary.
There was a question from the hon. Member for Norwich South about how the Government know that the impact on revenue from landlords and tenants is negligible. We do not have data in terms of specific numbers, because the tax is paid to HMRC by energy suppliers, not tenants and landlords, but this issue has not resulted in any lobbying or representations to us, which suggests that the numbers are extremely low, if not negligible.
This clause maintains the current scope of the exemption processes following the UK’s departure from the EU and, in response to representations from stakeholders, ensures that businesses entitled to the exemption are not precluded from benefiting, purely because they are tenants. I therefore move that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Clive Lewis
I thank the Minister for that response. All I will say is that, if I understand it correctly, the reason he is confident of those numbers is that no one is complaining. That is an interesting statistical analysis on which to base it, but I will accept it for now. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 128, in clause 63, page 45, line 13, at end insert—
“(6) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must carry out an impact assessment of the exemption for mineralogical and metallurgical processes under paragraph 12A of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 2000, as amended by this section, considering the impact on—
(a) tenanted businesses that carry out mineralogical and metallurgical processes,
(b) revenue effects,
(c) the UK’s ability to meet its third, fourth and fifth carbon budgets,
(d) the UK’s ability to meet its greenhouse gas emission targets.
(7) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay the impact assessment under subsection (6) before the House of Commons within two months of the passing of this Act.”—(Clive Lewis.)
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry out an impact assessment of the changes made by Clause 63 and their impact on tenants, HMRC revenues, the UK’s national carbon budgets, and carbon and other greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Clive Lewis
I thank the hon. Lady—her point is taken on board.
Such a beneficial undertaking would help both businesses and households to reduce drastically their waste streams and so cut their work-related and living costs. It would also go a very long way to helping the UK to meet its energy and greenhouse gas emission targets on the way to becoming a zero-waste, zero-carbon economy. As well as securing existing jobs and helping to create many new ones in the reuse, repair and recycling sectors, adopting the amendments that we are calling for would undoubtedly help to protect urban, suburban and natural environments where illegal waste dumping continues.
Will the Minister tell us how he means to address the very serious concerns of the Environmental Industries Commission and its members about the growing gap between the lower rate and the higher rate of this tax? The existing gap is already causing significant problems in the industry, with some operators presenting for the lower rate inert waste that actually contains asbestos fibres and therefore should be subject to the higher rate. How does the Minister intend to address that imbalance? In the EIC’s view, which is shared by Labour and a number of prominent environmental and countryside non-governmental organisations, the gap should be closed and not made wider, so that the tax acts as a deterrent to illegal waste disposal of all types and so benefits the public purse and society at large in significant environmental ways.
That being the case, in the absence of significant assurances from the Minister, we will struggle to support the clause as it stands. However, I would like to give the Minister the opportunity to provide us both with those assurances and some answers to the questions that we have posed. I look forward to his response.
Robert Jenrick
Like the hon. Gentleman, I get all the glamorous jobs, so I will endeavour to answer all his questions about landfill.
Clause 64 increases the standard and lower rates of landfill tax in line with inflation from April 2019, as announced in Budget 2017. Landfill tax has been immensely successful. Since its introduction, the amount of waste disposed of at landfill sites has fallen by more than 70%—of course, we would like to go further—and the benefits of that reduction are twofold. The first is to the economy: we have made better use of scarce resources rather than simply tipping them into holes in the ground across the country. Secondly, greenhouse gas emissions from decomposing waste are reduced. When waste is diverted from landfill, we promote more sustainable waste treatment, such as recycling. We are committed to moving towards a more circular economy, and we are working together with business, industry, civil society and the public to achieve that valuable aim. Landfill tax is an important fiscal lever that we can use to achieve it.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the Government are not doing more to meet their recycling target. The Government are very committed to meeting the target of recycling 50% of household waste by 2020. Through the Waste and Resources Action Programme, we are providing guidance and support to local government to help it to improve recycling services and to communicate with householders so that they recycle more. The next milestone in our campaign is the upcoming resources and waste strategy, on which we at the Treasury have been working closely with the Environment Secretary and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. That will outline a number of further measures to increase recycling across the UK.
The hon. Gentleman and others will have noticed other important measures in this regard, including the announcement of a forthcoming consultation with respect to a deposit return scheme and other measures in the Budget—for example, a plastic packaging tax, which is to be consulted on, with the aim of increasing the amount of recycled content in all the plastic packaging that we use in our daily lives.
Landfill tax continues to provide an incentive to reduce waste from landfill and ensure it is recycled and reduced: as landfill is the most expensive form of waste disposal, that makes perfect sense. We have also noted in the Budget that we would be willing to consider a future incineration tax once further infrastructure has been put in place to reduce, for example, the amount of plastics that are incinerated, further improving the environment and reducing the amount of throwaway single-use plastics.
The waste infrastructure delivery programme is providing some £3 billion in grant funding over its lifetime to a number of long-term local authority waste management projects, which has helped to increase recycling rates from 36% in 2008 to 45% in 2017. I hope the hon. Member for Norwich South will await the future resources and waste strategy, which will provide a number of important measures. Those will include further information on the reform of the producer responsibility system, which will play a crucial role in improving recycling capacity and infrastructure in all parts of the country.
The clause also changes the tax on disposal at landfill sites. Each tonne of standard-rated material is currently taxed at £88.95, and lower-rated material draws a tax of £2.80. Those rates per tonne will change to £91.35 and £2.90 respectively from 1 April 2019, which maintains the strong current signal to move waste away from landfill.
Amendment 130 would require a review of the revenue effects of the proposed changes. HMRC published tax information impact notes when the rates were announced at the autumn 2017 Budget.
Anneliese Dodds
As far as I understand it, that note did not look into the impact of differential tax rates on waste crime. The picture is very worrying: the number of illegal waste sites that the Environment Agency is dealing with had risen to 1,485 at the end of 2017-18, compared with 1,425 the previous year. The number of those illegal waste sites that were active had also risen—to 673—and there were eight fires at those sites last year, so why is the Minister not considering those factors? Surely a broader review is necessary.
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Lady raises an important question about waste crime, which affects many constituents across the country, including my own. We have taken a number of significant steps. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has conducted with the Home Secretary a review of waste crime, which looked at many of these questions—I believe that review was published recently. We also included a measure in the Budget whereby local authorities, or those responsible for clearing up illegal waste sites, could receive support from the Treasury to enable them to do so if the site met certain criteria, essentially providing support equivalent to the cost of the landfill tax itself. A number of hon. Members from across the House approached us to ask for that support, and we have delivered it as a £10 million pilot.
Anneliese Dodds
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. However, in the previous Budget, landfill tax was applied to illegal waste sites, so surely that measure is more than a pilot. As I understand it, it came into practice in April this year, because I have been trying to find out whether or not it has been applied to any sites. Surely that money should already be coming into the Exchequer?
Robert Jenrick
Perhaps I did not explain myself correctly to the hon. Lady. The measure that she speaks to was in the Budget last year, and has since been implemented via a statutory instrument that went through the House. That measure ensures that the landfill tax is payable on illegal waste sites. The measure that we have included in the Budget enables innocent parties—local authorities that take on, and wish to clean up, a site that has been left by criminals—to apply through the Environment Agency as part of the pilot for a sum of Treasury funding equivalent to the landfill tax, instead of having to pay that tax in addition to all the other costs involved in cleaning up the site. We hope that that will help local authorities with sites that are among the worst and most dangerous to public health to meet the costs of doing so. That measure was requested by a number of Members from across the House.
Anneliese Dodds
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way yet again. Surely Committee members are scratching their heads and thinking, “Would it not be more efficient and effective just to fund the Environment Agency properly so it can actually do some prosecutions, rather than going through this very complex system?”
Robert Jenrick
We do fund the Environment Agency correctly, and it is stepping up its enforcement of these sites. We urged it to do so—that was part of the purpose of the waste crime review. We have also increased the powers available to local authorities. For example, since May 2016, they have been able to issue fixed penalty notices for smaller scale fly-tipping. Fly-tipping is a criminal offence punishable by a fine of up to £50,000 or 12 months’ imprisonment. We wish to see more successful prosecutions, because this is a significant area of criminality that is linked to serious organised crime and other important types of criminality, such as the drug trade and human trafficking, against which we wish to take serious action. That is why fly-tipping was included in the Government’s review of serious organised crime in the waste sector, to which I have already referred.
Amendment 131 seeks to review the effect of these changes on the Government’s ability to meet the waste framework directive target of recycling 50% of waste by 2020, and amendment 132 seeks to review their impact on the amount of waste exported for treatment abroad. As the clause maintains the rates of landfill tax in real terms, we do not expect significant changes to the strong behavioural incentives the tax already provides. Landfill tax continues to play an important role in our meeting our targets for recycling and encouraging alternative forms of waste treatment, and the clause will ensure that landfill remains the most expensive form of waste treatment. Furthermore, I assure the Committee that the Government are committed to meeting the 50% household waste recycling target through the Waste and Resources Action Programme and the upcoming resources and waste strategy, on which we at the Treasury worked extremely closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I hope the Committee sees that amendments 131 and 132 are therefore unnecessary.
Amendment 133 would require a review of the expected effect of these changes on the quantity of waste that is sent to landfill. The uprating of landfill tax rates in line with the retail prices index ensures that those rates remain stable in real terms, and means that the tax can continue to help the Government meet their objective. Figures published regularly—annually, I think—by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs show a consistent decrease in the amount of waste sent to landfill as a result of increases to the capacity of alternative waste treatment, such as recycling, which is encouraged by our policy on landfill tax rates. As the clause will keep the rates the same in real terms, that decrease is expected to continue. I trust that provides the Committee with sufficient information, and I ask that amendment 133 not be pressed to a vote.
Amendment 134 would require a review of the expected impact on the environment of increasing the difference between the standard and lower rates of landfill tax. The clause seeks to increase landfill tax rates in line with inflation. That is the equivalent of maintaining the rates in real terms, which means there will be no real-terms change to the difference between the standard and lower rates. Although we appreciate there may be concerns about illegal dumping or breaking of the rules, we do not anticipate the clause making any material difference to those. The issues the hon. Member for Norwich South legitimately raised about individuals or companies dumping waste on which the higher rate should be paid, and seeking to pay the lower rate, are exactly the kinds of matters that were considered in the waste crime strategy. I hope that reassures the Committee, and I ask that amendment 134 not be pressed to a vote.
Clive Lewis
I thank the Minister for his answers. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East for her timely and useful interventions, which shed light on this issue.
Waste management is often the poor relation when it comes to policy making. It is not sexy, but it is critical. We have spoken about the environment and climate change today. Scientists say that it is entirely possible that we could save ourselves from climate change and its effects, only to destroy ourselves by breaching other planetary boundaries. Recycling and waste management are critical, if we are really to reap the benefits of improved recycling and technological processes that ensure we use resources as efficiently as possible. As we move through the 21st century, and population increases, that will become critical.
I will withdraw amendment 130, and will not press amendments 132, 133 and 135, but will press the remaining amendments to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 131, in clause 64, page 45, line 22, at end insert—
“(5) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expected effect of the changes made by this section to section 42 of the Finance Act 1996 on the UK’s ability to meet the Waste Framework Directive target of recycling 50% of waste by 2020, and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”.—(Clive Lewis.)
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the impact of Clause 64 on the UK’s ability to meet the target of recycling 50% of waste by 2020.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Robert Jenrick
The clause makes changes to ensure that penalties may be raised against businesses registered for the soft drinks industry levy that do not submit a quarterly return or fail to submit a quarterly return on time. The changes ensure that a penalty can still be raised for non-payment of the soft drinks industry levy in the event that certain provisions in the Bill are enacted.
The soft drinks industry levy was announced at Budget 2016. The levy commenced on 6 April 2018 and has been successful in its stated objective of driving reformulation, to such an extent that over half of all drinks by volume that would have been in scope of the levy have now been reformulated, and in fact were reformulated even before the tax came into effect. This measure will support that success by allowing penalties to be issued for late returns and non-submission of returns for accounting periods ending after 1 April 2019, should they be required.
Kirsty Blackman
I appreciate what the Minister says about the effects of the soft drinks industry levy, but it still does not apply to milk-based drinks. Will the Government consider extending the levy to milk-based drinks, given that it has been so successful?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Lady makes a valid point. When we announced the policy, we said that we would consider milk-based sugary drinks in 2020, which is when more information, including Public Health England data, will be available to inform that decision. We have reiterated that commitment, so there will be a review in just over a year, which could lead to such a decision, although we have no plans to extend the levy at this moment.
The changes made by the clause will help to provide a proportionate and fair penalty regime and to drive compliance. The changes will affect only soft drinks industry levy-registered businesses that do not submit a quarterly return and payment by the due date. Furthermore, although the clause gives us the powers to act, at present there is no evidence of fraud or non-compliance with the soft drinks industry levy on any material scale.
Clause 67 makes changes to amend section 1 of the Isle of Man Act 1979, to add the soft drinks industry levy to the list of common duties. It will ensure that the movement of liable soft drinks between the UK and the Isle of Man will not be seen as either an import or an export under the levy, as long as the levy rates of the UK and the Isle of Man remain aligned. This change will have effect from 1 April next year.
Clive Lewis
It is a pleasure to address the Committee on behalf of the Opposition for the final time today—I am sure to the great disappointment of all. The two clauses both address the soft drinks industry levy, often known colloquially as the sugar tax, which came into force in the current tax year. Given the scope of the two clauses, you will be relieved to hear, Mr Howarth, that I will not attempt to have a general debate on the basic principle of the tax—as tempted as I was. Nor do the Opposition disagree in principle with the Government’s broad intention in the clauses.
As the Minister said, clause 66 allows penalties to be imposed on businesses eligible to pay the soft drinks industry levy where they fail to submit the required quarterly return by the due date. It also ensures that similar penalties can be imposed for non-payment of the levy, contingent on certain provisions in the Finance (No. 3) Act 2010 being enacted. For context, will the Minister clarify the Government’s plans in relation to the enactment of these provisions? Will he explain why they have come to be made now, rather than during the passage of previous legislation?
On the substantive point, let me start by asking the Minister for some clarity about the number and types of business that might be affected. How many companies are now registered for the soft drinks industry levy, and what analysis can he give us of their size and scale? How does that compare with the number and composition originally anticipated? Will he outline for the Committee what kind of penalties a business might face, first, for failing to submit a quarterly return and, secondly, for non-payment? Is he convinced that the penalties are sufficient to deter tax evasion, while not being so high that genuine errors are disproportionately punished?
To put this in context, will the Minister tell us what level of evasion, late or non-payment, and failure to submit quarterly returns has been recorded to date? What estimate has the Treasury undertaken of any revenues lost to tax evasion? Has HMRC been able to give him any idea of the scale of the failure to submit returns? Is that related to evading payment, or is it simply down to administrative failures? How many returns are submitted late, and how many are not submitted at all?
On a related question, will the Minister tell us how much he expects to be raised through the imposition of these penalties and—perhaps more significantly—through any deterrent effect on tax evaders? Will the penalties, particularly for non-payment, form part of the revenue take for the tax, or will they be considered separately for purposes such as the intended link to funding for child health?
The Minister will be aware that the projected tax take from the levy has declined precipitously since the former Chancellor’s original estimates when he announced the levy. The original forecast was for £520 million in the current fiscal year. The latest “Economic and fiscal outlook” from the Office for Budget Responsibility, produced for last month’s Budget, anticipated that just £240 million will be raised. I assume the Minister stands by that figure, unless it has declined even further in the past few weeks. How much of that difference is down to the kind of deliberate evasion that clause 66 addresses, and how much is simply down to error in Treasury forecasts or—being generous—to changing economic circumstances and the impact of behavioural change? I should say for the record that, in the case of this tax, behavioural change is welcome, because it effectively means less sugar in soft drinks, with consequent benefits for public health. As I will touch on later, the dramatic shortfall in tax receipts has had some less desirable consequences.
I note that this measure comes into force at Royal Assent, rather than in the next tax year. We do not object to that, as measures to tackle tax evasion and avoidance should not be delayed. However, what steps have the Treasury and HMRC taken to ensure that businesses are alerted and that tax collectors can take full advantage? When does the Minister expect the first quarterly returns to be due under this measure?
Perhaps the Minister can explain what will happen should Royal Assent occur around the due date for a quarterly returns. If, for example, a quarterly return is due on 1 February—let us say, for argument’s sake, for the final quarter of the current financial year—and Royal Assent was achieved on 2 February, would the penalties be enforceable on a company that failed to submit, or would they not be retrospectively enforceable? Indeed, it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us what the due dates are for quarterly returns over the next year, what returns are required at the end of the financial year, and whether this measure applies to those or simply to returns at the end of each quarter.
Of course, the Minister is not responsible for the allocation of parliamentary time, so he may not be able to predict when Royal Assent is likely. When it comes to this Government, things are, to put it mildly, a bit unpredictable. Given the apparent trouble with their supply and confidence agreement, in which confidence seems to be somewhat lacking, the passage even of the Finance Bill may be a bit choppy when we go back downstairs to the main Chamber. [Interruption.] I apologise if I am keeping the Government Whip awake. Perhaps the Minister can tell us what the impact of different dates might be, and what consideration the Treasury has given to that in its assumptions and planning?
Clause 67 is designed to facilitate the movement between the UK and Isle of Man of soft drinks on which the industry levy has been paid, without that being designated as an import or export respectively for the purposes of the levy. It also adds the levy, and the Manx equivalent proposed by the Isle of Man Government, to the list of common duties in the Isle of Man Act 1979. After the introduction of the levy in April, eligible soft drinks that were brought into the UK from the Isle of Man were chargeable under section 33 of the Finance Act 2017, and those removed from the UK can attract an export credit. The Isle of Man, however, is introducing Manx SDIL from the next tax year, which is equivalent.
As the UK and Manx Governments have now agreed, in principle, to treat soft drinks that have been levy-paid in the one as being levy-paid in the other, and to share revenue, administration and enforcement of the respective levies, I understand from the Minister that the Government’s view is that those arrangements are, in effect, being superseded. The levy will therefore be treated as a common duty under the 1979 Act, with a commencement date to coincide with the introduction of the levy in the Isle of Man—in other words, at the start of the next tax year in April 2019. The Opposition have no objection to those arrangements, but I would ask the Minister to clarify a few points—before we lose the light completely.
First, the Manx SDIL is described in the Government’s accompanying notes as “modelled” on the UK version. Can the Minister clarify what that means? Is it identical or are there significant differences? The rates are presumably the same, but are there any variations in design? Have the Manx Government made any improvements in the structure or implementation, from which we could learn? Are we confident that they will be able to enforce the levy in a consistent way that does not create any incentives for producers to relocate from one jurisdiction to the other?
In the meantime, can the Minister assure us that we are not missing out on revenue that should be owed, due to failures of collection and enforcement at the point of import? Does he have any figures on the total revenue raised from charges on imported soft drinks from the Isle of Man?
I must confess that my knowledge of the Manx soft drinks industry is sadly limited, so perhaps the Minister can give us a sense of its scale and tell us whether there is a revenue impact. I would hazard a guess that it is likely that our import and export of soft drinks to and from the Isle of Man are not of identical value, but perhaps he can confirm that to the Committee either way.
Before I conclude, I want to return to the point about the overall revenue impacts of the two clauses in the context of the soft drinks industry levy. This is important, because when the levy was created, it was linked directly to investment in projects that would improve the health of our children. A ring-fenced sum was put aside for the healthy pupils capital fund, which would fund schools to create facilities for better physical and mental health, or for disability access. At the time that was announced by the then Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), the Government
“pledged to ensure that the amount schools receive will not fall below £415 million regardless of the funds generated by the levy.”
That solemn pledge, still available on the Department for Education website, did not last the year. Instead, the fund was cut by more than three quarters, to just £100 million for the year, when the Government desperately tried to plug their own gap in the main schools’ budget for one year only, by raiding the money that was meant to be ring-fenced for children’s health.
As a constituency MP, I know just how desperate schools in Norwich South are for funding. Schools have had to fire teaching assistants because of the budget constraints they find themselves in, and that money could have been very useful to them in helping our children and their educational attainment. I also know the impact that austerity has had on the health of our children.
When I represented the Opposition in February this year on the Delegated Legislation Committee implementing the levy, I pressed the Minister, and he assured us that
“regardless of how much is raised, the Government remain committed to funding the Department for Education with the £1 billion that we originally expected, and providing the devolved Administrations with the full amount that we promised at the time.”
He went on to say:
“Every penny of England’s share of the spending raised by the levy will go towards improving children’s health”.—[Official Report, Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee, 7 February 2018; c. 3.]
Perhaps he can confirm today whether that remains the case, and that the Government are not counting the £350 million that was cut from the healthy pupils fund towards the latter commitment. Secondly, I hope he can clarify that that applies to any additional revenue raised by the two clauses before us. If he can give us an expected amount, will he indicate how that will be allocated?
Robert Jenrick
I will respond to as many of those questions as I can; if I omit any answers, I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
With respect to the Isle of Man’s SDIL in clause 67, I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but no one currently produces soft drinks on the Isle of Man—so there is a business opportunity, should any of us need one in the near future. The Manx soft drinks industry levy is expected to be identical to the existing one in the rest of the United Kingdom. We do not expect that there will be any issues on enforcement, although we will of course continue to monitor that closely.
On the number of registered businesses, 450 have already registered. The top four of those by volume pay 90% of receipts, as one would perhaps expect.
In terms of publicising the changes to businesses, we have not specifically publicised those—we have taken a light touch in the first year of operation—but we do not anticipate any difficulties, given that there is only a small number of registered businesses.
The hon. Gentleman had a particular interest in the duty periods. The duty period runs from April to June, and that is due on 1 August. The July to September duty period is due on 1 November.
In terms of why we are taking this action now, we always intended to be as light touch as possible, but it is sensible to proceed with this housekeeping on behalf of HMRC to ensure the full range of compliance and penalty powers are available to combat non-compliance. We do not have evidence to date of any material degree of fraud or non-compliance, and certainly nothing that should make the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member concerned, but it is sensible and prudent for us to take this action, should circumstances change in the future.
The hon. Gentleman asked about some specific details, including how much the penalty will be for late returns. It will be £100 in the first instance, rising to £400 for four or more offences. The first late return will incur that fixed amount of £100. The penalty will then rise to £200 for a second late return within a 12-month period, to £300 thereafter, and eventually to £400. We think that is proportionate given that there has not been a significant problem to date, and that gives HMRC the powers it requires.
Where a return for a particular period is still not filed within 12 months, a further penalty will be issued, in the amount of 5%, 70% or 100% of the liability for the return period, depending on whether HMRC believes there has been a deliberate and concealed effort to withhold information, or £300—whichever is greater. Those are not excessive sums, but they give HMRC the powers it requires.
Clive Lewis
Does the Minister think a £400 fine is really a deterrent for a major international soft drinks manufacturer?
Robert Jenrick
That is a fair challenge, but given that we have no evidence of non-compliance or fraud, it is sensible to proceed on a relatively light-touch basis. If there were evidence of larger manufacturers being fraudulent or non-compliant, we might change things, but at the moment there is no such evidence. With those reassurances, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 66 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I hope everyone has a wonderful weekend studying the terms of the withdrawal agreement.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Craig Whittaker.)
Finance (No. 3) Bill (Seventh sitting)
Robert Jenrick ExcerptsThursday 6th December 2018
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Finance Act 2019 View all Finance Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 6 December 2018 - (6 Dec 2018)
Clive Lewis
Yes, I do. I do not think that there is a lack of ambition from the Mayor of London or from local authorities around the country; ultimately what holds them back is a lack of resources. Will the Minister commit to using the revenue to offer London the same air quality funding that is being made available to other parts of the country, to ensure that ultra low emission zones are a success?
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
It is good to be back, Mr Howarth. As we have heard, clause 57 will make changes to vehicle excise duty rates for cars, vans and motorcycles with effect from 1 April 2019. As announced in the Budget, those rates will increase in line with the retail prices index from that date. As a result, they will have remained unchanged in real terms since 2010, with additional significant incentives for ultra low and zero emission cars. That comes on top of the Government’s decision to freeze fuel duty rates for the ninth successive year, which by April 2020 will have saved the average car driver £1,000 compared with the pre-2010 escalator.
Cars first registered on or after March 2001 pay VED based on their carbon dioxide emissions; 87% of those cars will pay no more than £5 extra in 2019-20. From April 2017, a reformed VED system was introduced that strengthens the environmental incentives when cars are first purchased, with all cars paying a standard rate in subsequent years. The standard rate will increase by £5 only. Expensive cars with a list price of more than £40,000 pay an additional supplement for five years of paying the standard rate. That will increase from £310 to £320, so it is only a modest increase, and it will affect about 7% of new car purchases. Finally, the flat rate for vans will increase by £10, and for motorcyclists there will be no more than a £3 increase in rates. We believe that those are modest, incremental changes, which protect the public finances but also pay careful attention to the cost of living for motorists.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I appreciate that the Minister is providing all this information in answer to issues raised by the amendments. Given that he has all the information, it would be great if he just put it into a review, as the amendments would require, so that we could see it written down in six months’ time.
Robert Jenrick
I take the hon. Lady’s point, but the information is mostly already in the public domain. It is not clear to me what information is not available. With respect to air quality, the Government will very shortly publish our ambitious clean air strategy. I encourage her and other hon. Members who, perfectly understandably, want to scrutinise our clean air commitments to pay attention to that document and scrutinise the Environment Secretary at that point. No doubt he will come to the House to make an announcement on the strategy.
The hon. Member for Norwich South also mentioned London. London already has a separate comprehensive funding settlement from the Department for Transport, which includes measures to deliver compliance with legal air quality limits. The Mayor has significant powers to take additional measures. Londoners also receive further funding for ultra low emission vehicles such as taxis. Indeed, measures in the Bill support the uptake of ultra low emission taxis. We took those measures a year early, as we will discuss later, and they have had a significant impact on the number of taxis on the streets of London. There are now between 500 and 600 electric or ultra low emission taxis that did not exist at the beginning of the year, incentivised by the measures taken by the Treasury. We are also supporting low emission buses and charging infrastructure. The Committee has already discussed the £200 million public investment in charging infrastructure, which we hope will spur at least a further £200 million of private investment. That will support charging infrastructure in all parts of the United Kingdom.
I hope hon. Members respect the fact that we consider the funding settlement for London’s roads as separate from that for the rest of the United Kingdom. That is a long-standing convention. We occasionally provide additional money. For instance, in the Budget the Chancellor provided more than £400 million for potholes. He included London in that, so London boroughs are able to take advantage of that money, but in general the funding settlement for London’s roads is separate from the negotiation with respect to Highways England.
I urge the Committee to reject the amendments, as I believe the reports they would require are unnecessary. The changes outlined in the clause will ensure that the Government continue to support motorists with the cost of living while ensuring that they continue to make a fair contribution to the public finances. As a result of our decision to hypothecate VED revenues, we will see a major increase in investment in our strategic roads, which I hope will benefit everyone in all parts of the United Kingdom. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Clive Lewis
I thank the Minister for trying to answer some of our questions, but I still find myself with questions. It seems that there is a basic issue of transparency here. If, as he is saying, the Department for Transport has given certain funding to London—I am sure that is true—it would do no harm to make transparent what other funding is going to other parts of the country, so that the figures can be compared and contrasted to ensure that London is getting its fair share. The Mayor of London clearly does not believe that it is getting its fair share. It is the capital city—it has a large population, many vehicles on the road and a high population density—and all that is being asked for here is transparency.
On the issue of there being no assessment of the impact of the clause on road congestion on traffic levels, the Minister said that VED has a limited impact on that, but that is quite an arbitrary statement. Taxes have two effects: they can raise revenue and they can change behaviour. It is normally one or the other, but there are variations and it is sometimes a bit of both. I do not think it is beyond the ken of the Government to assess the potential impact of the VED increases on congestion levels, given that we have all agreed that air quality in this country is in a pretty poor state. Tens of thousands of people are dying prematurely or are adversely affected every single year.
To echo the sentiment of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, it would not be too much trouble to write a report along the lines that we have asked for and make it available to Parliament. So go on, please.
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but on this occasion I will resist his request. On the two issues he raises, the clause is not increasing VED; it is simply allowing it to rise with RPI, so the clause has no revenue impact; the public finances assume that VED and many other duties will rise with RPI, so its impact will be negligible. This is not a substantial or material increase in VED. I really do not think there would be any value in having a review.
On the wider question of roads funding, all this information is in the public domain. The settlement with respect to roads for London is in the public domain, as is the settlement for the roads fund. Which roads will then be funded through the roads investment strategy, which will be set out in the middle of next year, will be in the public domain. All these investments are highly transparent, as one would expect. That information is available to all hon. Members, should they wish to view it.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
My observation is that an awful lot of money is spent in London, compared with the regions of this country, whether the north-west or south-west. There may be a very good reason for that—London is a very important city for our nation—but I would not be inclined to vote even more money to London, bearing in mind that it has the biggest infrastructure project in Crossrail, to which the Government have already given £300 million extra. If there is any special pleading, it really ought to be for the shires and counties of this country, which probably need a bit more money for potholes, rather than clean air.
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. It is certainly important to me, as a midlands and northern MP. The Government have made a significant effort both to increase the levels of public investment in infrastructure over the course of this Parliament to the highest levels in my lifetime—the highest level since the 1970s—and to redress the regional imbalance. Over the course of this Parliament, for example, investment in transport will be highest in the north-west of England, and London and the south-west will be among the lowest. There is a great deal more to do, not least because London has the ability to raise significant amounts of money from local government, which has co-funded projects such as Crossrail. My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point.
Clive Lewis
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
VED: taxis capable of zero emissions
Clive Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a very good point; that is one lost year of support.
To include electric vehicles—ah, I have already said that. I will recap, though. [Laughter.] To include electric vehicles in that policy was clearly a major oversight by the Treasury in last year’s Budget. The correction, although somewhat late in the day, is none the less welcome and, indeed, essential if we are to seriously encourage the uptake of electric vehicles, specifically taxis.
That is particularly pertinent as local regulations are tightening around clean air and greenhouse gas emissions, as we have seen with the implementation of the ultra low emissions zone in London. Amendments 112 to 114 require the Government to undertake a review that we believe is essential to understand the consequences of the clause, which range over the impact that it is likely to have on the Exchequer, on the taxi and private car rental industry, and on CO2 emissions and climate change targets. Amendments 112 and 113 focus on the economic impact of the clause, both on the Exchequer and on taxi and private car rental companies. Can the Minister provide an assessment of the revenue implications of the measure?
Similarly, while we understand from the published documents relating to the clause that industry response to the Government consultation was supportive, will the Treasury do further analysis of the potential economic impact on taxi companies and the private car rental industry, should the change come into effect? The Minister may wish to resist the amendments, but regardless of any legal obligation, will he commit to conducting such an analysis and presenting it to the House in due course?
Amendment 114 refers to carbonisation and improving air quality. It would seem, in that respect, that taxis are low-hanging fruit. They are used frequently, often in urban areas with poor air quality. Similarly, according to the Mayor of London, drivers stand to benefit from lower fuel costs—by around £2,800 a year—and from avoiding present and future congestion and air quality charges. We believe, however, that the Government have failed to put in place necessary fiscal incentives to encourage the transition to the electric vehicles needed to ensure a reduction in CO2 emissions. Simply removing the excess tax for luxury vehicles, as the clause would do, does not go far enough to encourage the uptake of zero-emission vehicles.
The primary driving forces behind the reluctance to take up electric vehicles are cost and an anxiety about range. The costs of electric vehicles are explained by high manufacturing costs, specifically of their batteries. The anxiety about range affects taxi drivers far more than private vehicle owners or private car hire companies, as they do not have access to the range in the ultra-low emissions vehicle segment of the market for mid-range to luxury. That is due to licensing conditions, as they need to fulfil accessibility requirements. In London, for example, that means that many drivers are mandated to buy a London-style hackney taxi in many districts. Will the Minister agree to assess the impact of clause 58 on CO2 emissions and the UK’s climate change targets, and whether that policy goes far enough in encouraging the purchase of zero-emissions taxis?
I have a few questions on the clause. At present, a grant of £7,500 is available for new zero-emissions taxis. We believe that the Government should be looking to increase available grants and encourage the transition to electric vehicles, specifically taxis, in areas outside Greater London. There are currently only a few limited pots of funding, not all of which are available for taxis, and they are largely skewed towards Greater London.
Similarly, the Government have yet to invest a penny of the £400 million charging fund announced in the 2017 Budget, half of which should be public money, with the other half contributed by the private sector, as we have already heard. Will the Minister tell us whether the issue that the clause seeks to rectify will aid the Government in finally setting up the charging fund that they promised to deliver to encourage the use of zero-emissions vehicles? Will he give us a clear timetable of when that fund will be operational? Will he commit that he or another relevant Minister will come back to the House with more detail when it is due to launch?
Available charging infrastructure is a requirement of accelerating the transition. Outside London and a few select places, availability is poor. Drivers face a postcode lottery that is a barrier to electric vehicle growth. For example, there are more chargers available in the Orkney Islands than in Blackpool, Grimsby and Hull combined. Even if grants are available, drivers in some areas will be unable to perform their work using EVs, due to the unavailability of charging infrastructure. It could therefore be argued that even if the Government increased grants and ensured that availability, poverty of EV infrastructure would mean that a majority of taxis would not be in a position to benefit from the change suggested in clause 58. Will the Minister comment on that? What assessment has been undertaken of the availability and adequacy of the infrastructure, and what steps are being taken to ensure that it does not undermine the good intentions behind the clause? Although the current situation is a mistake, it should not have happened in the first place. The measure is important in seeking to undo the bias created by classing zero-emissions taxis as luxury vehicles, and in encouraging the uptake of zero-emissions vehicles.
We will support the clause—we ask only that the Government assure us that the right analysis will be done to assess the impact of the measure on the Exchequer, the companies that will be affected, and the environment. We urge the Government to take such matters into consideration. I hope the Minister can give us some assurance on those points.
Robert Jenrick
I thank the hon. Gentleman for those questions. I hope that I can answer them all and reassure him. Clause 58, as we have heard, makes changes to ensure that purpose-built taxis that are capable of zero emissions do not have to pay the VED supplement applicable to expensive vehicles, which are those with a list price of more than £40,000. Having listened to representations on the issue, the Government announced in March that the exemption for such taxis would be brought forward a year earlier than planned.
We do not believe that the purchases of many vehicles, if any, were adversely affected. For example, the London Electric Vehicle Company, which manufactures these vehicles, had sold almost no vehicles by the time of the announcement and has subsequently sold more than 500 vehicles—I do not have the exact figures but I am happy to supply them to the hon. Gentleman—so from the time of our announcement in early March to the present day, the incentives have clearly made a significant difference in stimulating the market. We do not believe that many purchases, if any—I will confirm that point—were disadvantaged as a result of this matter, which was an unintended consequence of the earlier policy.
An exemption will encourage the transition to ultra-low and zero-emissions taxis. The figures show that, certainly in London, there has already been a significant take-up in vehicles, although it is less in other parts of the United Kingdom. I believe that the manufacturers are now targeting other cities, including Manchester and Nottingham—my nearest city—to improve their air quality. We want to see that rolled out as soon as possible in all part of the United Kingdom.
It will make the system fairer. The Government recognise that a number of technical requirements exist for purpose-built taxis, including, as the hon. Gentleman said, access for disabled passengers and turning circles, meaning that only a limited number of options are available. Most other motorists have a range of vehicles available to them, many costing less than £40,000, and can therefore choose not to pay the supplement.
In passing, the hon. Gentleman mentioned other private hire vehicles. Our argument—a valid one, I think —has always been that there are a range of other options available to drivers of private hire vehicles. They do not have to purchase a vehicle costing over £40,000. That would be a choice because they want to enter a particular segment of the market. Those driving a registered London taxi do not have that discretion. Therefore, it would not be right for drivers buying a taxi capable of zero emissions to pay the VED supplement targeted at cars at the luxury end of the market. As the supplement is only due from the second licence onwards, this means that almost all taxi drivers who have purchased an eligible taxi from April 2018 will never have to pay the supplement. This will save those drivers up to £1,600 in total.
The changes made by the clause will provide the power to exempt purpose-built zero-emissions taxis from the supplement for expensive cars, through regulations. This will enable the Government to apply the exemption to further models as they become available in the future.
I will turn briefly to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Norwich South. Amendment 112 would require the Government to review the revenue effects of the changes made by the clause. The Government have already published a tax information impact note, in line with normal practice, which sets out that the revenue impact of the changes will be negligible. Amendments 113 and 114 would require the Government to review the effect of the clause on the taxi and private hire sectors, and the impact on carbon dioxide emissions and our carbon budgets. The measure applies to purpose-built taxis only, enabling a quicker switch to greener models by saving drivers that £1,600. It is not expected to have an impact on the number of taxis on the roads, but it is intended to increase the proportion of those that are capable of zero emissions. By strengthening the incentive to purchase such taxis over conventionally fuelled alternatives, the measure is expected to have a small positive impact on our ability to meet our fourth and fifth carbon budgets, although isolating its impact would be challenging and uncertain. I am not sure what value, if any, that analysis would provide. Again, these impacts were covered in the published tax information and impact note. I respectfully urge the Committee to reject the amendments, on the grounds that they are unnecessary.
The hon. Gentleman asked important questions about electric vehicle charge points. Clearly it is important for taxi drivers in London, and indeed in any other part of the United Kingdom, to know that the relevant charge points are available to them. Range anxiety is just as valid, if not more so, for a taxi driver as it is for a private citizen. Significant investment is underway in London, particularly for fast charge points, which are critical for taxi drivers, so they do not have to spend hours waiting to recharge or top-up their vehicle. The Mayor of London is leading that effort and making good progress.
With regard to the charge point infrastructure fund, which I spoke about in relation to the previous clause, we are close to appointing a fund manager and expect it to be launched in January or February. I am happy to write to him with more details and to inform him when it is launched, but I expect that to be at the very beginning of the new year.
Clive Lewis
There is £200 million in public money and £200 million in private money. Will the Minister confirm whether the £200 million in private funding has actually arrived and is available for the Treasury to spend on EV infrastructure?
Robert Jenrick
The answer is that the fund has not actually been launched yet. We are committed to the £200 million, but we will not know until the fund is launched the amount of private capital we are able to crowd in as a result of that. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with more detail about that. As I said, I expect in the first two months of the new year to be in a position to launch the fund and to inform hon. Members across the House of its detail, should they wish to direct businesses in their constituencies that are interested in this area to it. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Clive Lewis
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 114, in clause 58, page 41, line 16, at end insert—
“(6) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects on levels of CO2 emissions and the UK’s ability to meet its fourth and fifth carbon budgets of the changes made to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 by this section and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”—(Clive Lewis.)
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the impact of this measure on CO2 emissions and climate change targets.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Kirsty Blackman
If we are going to disincentivise people from using HGVs or charge them more for using HGVs, we need to make sure that we have a positive route with alternative methods of transport. There has been a massive increase in the number of light goods vehicles, which is negative if we end up with older diesel models.
We could develop the rail freight network. I understand that it is pretty difficult for those who are looking to increase rail freight to get time on the lines because of the number of passenger trains. Solutions to assist that would be very helpful in ensuring that freight is moved around the UK in the least carbon-emitting way possible.
Subsection (6)(b) relates to Euro 6. It describes the definition of Euro 6, saying that it is as in the EC directive. I am keen for the Government to lay out what would happen about the development of new standards after Brexit and any transition period. Is it their intention that we would have our own standards on vehicle emissions? If so, how much does the Minister believe it will cost to assess vehicles? What would be the cost of UK-EU regulatory divergence, which will result in issues for car manufacturers?
Alternatively, do the Government intend that we should not diverge from using the European Commission directive standards? Obviously technology is developing and there will be new standards to which we should peg our decisions on tax rates. If the UK Government plan not to have their own assessment centre, with regulatory divergence, do they plan to continue to follow EC directives? What preparation are the Government making in that case to scrutinise or comment on the directives, given that we will not be in the room after Brexit, and will therefore not be able to influence the standards, either to support our car manufacturers or secure the best standards for the British public and get improved air quality?
I understand that the Minister may not have the answer at his fingertips, but I hope he can say something.
Robert Jenrick
I shall try to respond to the many points that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole in part answered the challenge from the hon. Member for Norwich South as to whether hauliers pay their fair share. It is worth remembering that they pay a range of taxes, as my hon. Friend pointed out. They pay the levy that we are discussing and vehicle excise duties. They also pay tax on fuel. Taken as a package, hauliers pay a considerable amount of tax. British hauliers as an industry are highly taxed, going by European and international comparisons. The reforms mean that some hauliers will pay more. The VED system is based on both weight and axles, so to some extent it reflects wear and tear on the roads, although I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Norwich South that HGVs make a significant impact on the roads. I did not realise it was 100,000 times that of a Ford Focus, but that puts things in perspective.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the HGV levy was specifically hypothecated to tackle such issues as potholes and strategic roads. It is not. However, as I have described, the VED system will be, which will significantly increase the amount of investment that the country makes in roads at every level: £28.8 billion is the spending envelope for roads investment announced by the Chancellor in the Budget, and £25 billion of it will be spent on strategic roads in the road investment strategy that will be announced later next year. That will be about 170% of the first road investment strategy, so there is almost double the amount of investment going into roads to tackle congestion and improve strategic roads in all parts of the country.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North made a valid point about the European standards. It is our intention to remain closely aligned to those. That seems sensible and it is our intention in a number of respects, such as climate change, emissions and carbon budgets, as is indeed set out elsewhere in the Bill. For example, we have not yet made a final decision on carbon trading, but we shall monitor it and review the matter. If I can give the hon. Lady any further information I will write to her to set out the position of the Department for Transport.
On the broader question of why we are not using the VED system for HGVs to encourage greater take-up of zero-emission or ultra-low emission HGVs, it comes back to the point made by the hon. Lady: currently there are very few commercially available ultra-low emission alternatives for HGV drivers, which prevents the broad uptake of new vehicles. Clearly, we would like to do all we can to stimulate the market and see rapid progress, but we have to be mindful of that. Through the Road to Zero strategy that was published earlier this year, the Government have committed to working with the industry to reduce HGV greenhouse gas emissions significantly by 2025. The strategy sets out the Government’s plans to use a variety of different tools to meet that commitment.
The hon. Member for Norwich South made a number of important points about HGVs and road safety. I will write to him on that and find out what information I can about DFT’s work, because it is important that we take note and see what can be done to improve road safety, particularly as the number of vehicles going down smaller roads and country lanes as a result of online shopping is becoming more important. Through the Road to Zero strategy and other initiatives, DFT is paying attention to how we can improve the last mile of delivery to tackle air quality and reduce the number of vehicles on our roads.
The clause introduces a lower rate of HGV levy for vehicles that meet the latest emission standard, and a higher rate for vehicles that do not. As we have discussed, the change will incentivise hauliers to move to cleaner, less-polluting vehicles. It is only right that everyone plays their part in protecting our natural environment so that we leave a cleaner, greener Britain for our children. HGVs currently account for approximately 20% of harmful nitrogen oxide emissions from road transport but only 5% of total miles travelled, so they will play an important part in tackling the problem.
The changes made by the clause will reduce HGV levy rates by 10% for vehicles that meet the latest emission standards, reflecting the fact that they generate 80% less NOx emissions than the older HGVs. The clause will also increase rates by 20% for HGVs that do not meet those standards. Many hauliers will pay less as more companies move to cleaner lorries—we have introduced it to improve air quality and not to raise revenue.
On amendments 115 to 118, to which the hon. Member for Norwich South spoke, the Government have published a tax information impact note outlining the impact assessment of these reforms, including the forecasted revenue effects, which have been certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility. I believe those amount to £25 million over the scorecard period. These reforms to the HGV levy are part of wider action by the Government to tackle challenges in the areas highlighted by the amendments. Isolating the impact of the HGV levy reforms would be extremely challenging and, I suspect, of limited use, as they cannot be separated from other actions the Government is taking in these areas.
The Government’s draft clean air strategy sets out an annual reporting process for the monitoring of air pollution, which is the appropriate mechanism for assessing the effectiveness of those changes and others over time, rather than introducing a new method to review it, as proposed by the amendments. I therefore urge the Committee to reject the amendments. The changes outlined in the measure will ensure that both foreign and domestic HGVs play their part in meeting the Government’s air quality targets.
Clive Lewis
I thank the Minister for his contribution. I note that he was unaware of the 100,000 figure between the damage caused by an HGV compared with the damage caused by a Ford Focus. Have the Government made any assessment of whether HGVs currently cover the cost of the impact they have on UK road infrastructure? It sounds like they have not, but the Treasury should be able to amend VED or the taxation system that it will use in order to better reflect that.
To pick up on some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Poole, we are talking about externalities. Everyone wants to see everybody pay their fair share, and I am aware that haulier companies pay not just the excise for HGVs, but road tax and fuel tax. So do drivers of Ford Focuses: they also pay their fair share of tax, including income tax and other taxes as well. We all pay our fair share of tax, but if HGVs are damaging the roads to that extent and having such an impact in terms of road traffic accidents, that calls into question whether they are paying excise duty appropriately, and whether that excise duty is a genuine reflection of the cost that those HGVs are exacting on society and on our road systems.
Robert Jenrick
In my earlier remarks, I did not respond to the hon. Gentleman’s questions on the calls for evidence. We did a call for evidence before we introduced the levy in 2014 and, at that point, the time-based levy was the preferred method among those who responded. That was the reason why we alighted on that methodology. The call for evidence on the reforms, which he also asked me about, will be published next month—further information that he may wish to scrutinise when it is published. As I said earlier in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole, we believe that HGV drivers pay their fair share through the levy, through VED and through fuel duty. However, we will of course keep the matter under review.
Sir Robert Syms
If a road haulier sends a vehicle with a load to a city in the north, the profit it makes is on the load back. If that vehicle runs empty, the haulier has higher costs. Therefore, if that vehicle is empty, the road haulier’s manager is not doing his job properly—they have not been able to find a load—or the vehicle is going from one factory or depot to another to pick up a load. It is inevitable that there will be some empty vehicles, but that is not the fault of the road haulage industry. They would love their vehicles to be full.
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Technology will improve that situation in time, as he said in his earlier remarks, but we will keep this matter under review. However, we respectfully ask that the amendments be rejected.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Finance (No. 3) Bill (Sixth sitting)
Robert Jenrick Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 84, in schedule 14, page 260, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (d).
The provision as drafted allows companies to transfer TTH worth double the value of anticipated decommissioning costs. This reduces the incentive for companies towards efficiencies in decommissioning costs and paves the way for decommissioning-related tax repayments far bigger than the companies are currently acknowledging. This amendment removes that provision.
Amendment 81, in schedule 14, page 261, line 29, at end insert—
“(aa) assessing the impact on employment, skills and the Exchequer from the asset’s production life and planned decommissioning phase, and”
Amendment 89, in schedule 14, page 261, line 42, at end insert—
“(d) includes an assessment of the impact on the Exchequer from the amount spent on directly employed and contracted staff by the seller over the production life of the asset to date; and the impact on the Exchequer from the buyer’s plans for employed and contracted staff up to and including the decommissioning stage.”
This amendment requires a decommissioning security agreement to include an assessment of the impact on the Exchequer from the amount spent on staff, in order for that agreement to be qualifying for the purposes of this Schedule.
Amendment 85, in schedule 14, page 268, line 40, at end insert—
“(aa) the amount spent by the purchaser in post-acquisition periods on new capital investment, major maintenance work, retraining of redundant staff, initiatives to reduce methane emissions or initiatives to introduce carbon-capture techniques into the operations in relation to the relevant TTH assets (‘post-acquisition qualifying investment’)”.
This amendment, and amendments 86 and 87 incentivize capital investment by new purchasers in job creation and emissions reductions. Combined, the amendments limit the TTH which may be claimed to an amount equal to such investment.
Amendment 86, in schedule 14, page 269, line 3 at end insert—
“(c) the amount by which total post-acquisition qualifying investment exceeded the higher of excess decommissioning expenditure and the total TTH amount as calculated for the first activation period under paragraph 35.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 85.
Amendment 87, in schedule 14, page 269, line 40, at end insert—
“(c) provided that the total activated TTH amount may never exceed the purchaser’s post-acquisition qualifying investment for the relevant TTH assets or TTH oil fields.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 85.
That schedule 14 be the Fourteenth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 37 stand part.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
If I may, I will conclude the remarks I was making earlier—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]—to widespread acclamation. Clause 36 will establish transferable tax history, which is widely supported across the industry and will help to protect and increase the number of jobs in the oil and gas sector in the whole of the United Kingdom and, in particular, in north-east Scotland. We see this as a great step forward for this important national asset. We believe that it is fiscally responsible, as was certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility. It will bring in revenues to the Exchequer of £65 million, and reports to the contrary are misguided.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Given that we know that the decommissioning costs could come to around £24 billion and that there is provision in the Bill to double that to £48 billion—I asked this question in my opening remarks, but I will ask it again—what money has the Treasury put aside specifically to cover these costs for future Governments, a little bit further into the future?
Robert Jenrick
Decommissioning costs will be covered by future Governments over the course of decades to come. We estimate that the costs will run into something in the region of £24 billion, as the hon. Gentleman says, although, as I said in my remarks earlier, we are working closely with the industry to bring down those costs. We hope the UK will become a world-leading market for decommissioning and that we will see at least a 35% reduction in those costs over time. The measure before us will help the situation by increasing revenues to the Exchequer, which could be set against future decommissioning costs if required.
Clive Lewis
We have said that the costs could be up to £48 billion—no insignificant sum of money. If we do not ring-fence some of the petroleum revenues to pay for this, it will fall entirely on future Governments further down the line, and nothing is being done now to prepare for that. That is a lot of money that could hit a future Government and a future Exchequer in goodness knows what economic conditions.
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Gentleman is arguing that we should ring-fence revenues from the oil and gas sector, whether through petroleum revenue taxation, the supplementary charge or whatever it might be in the future. That is not what we have done in the past. It is a peculiar argument to make when opposing the transferable tax history measure, which will increase revenue to the Exchequer, extend the life of a number of fields and make decommissioning easier and more affordable in the future. With that, I commend clause 36 to the Committee and ask hon. Members to reject the amendments.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 14
Oil activities: transferable tax history
Amendment proposed: 84, in schedule 14, page 260, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (d).—(Clive Lewis.)
The provision as drafted allows companies to transfer TTH worth double the value of anticipated decommissioning costs. This reduces the incentive for companies towards efficiencies in decommissioning costs and paves the way for decommissioning-related tax repayments far bigger than the companies are currently acknowledging. This amendment removes that provision.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Sir Robert Syms
I am sure it is, but I suspect the hospitality industry is 10 times that. The other factor about the drinks industry generally is that it is very regionally diverse, with the scotch industry in Scotland, and wine, cider and beer producers. We all have representations from the owners of breweries, which employ people and are sometimes very important parts of the local economy. We have all had representations from people who run public houses, which are also central to the community. One of the worst things that has happened over the past few decades is the number of public houses that have closed, which has had a material impact on many people and communities. This is a matter of balance, and the Government may be wrong or they may be right, but I think they are more likely to be right because their approach is more likely to secure jobs in the hospitality and brewing industries, and to achieve a proper balance so that people can enjoy a meal or a drink out.
There is a serious alcohol issue, but the producers of wine and beer label things very clearly to show the strength of alcohol. There is a strong “Drinkaware” campaign, so it is not difficult for people to find out the impact of alcohol, but we know there is a hard core of heavy drinkers, many of whom use A&Es and ambulances. It costs about half a million pounds a year to keep an ambulance on the road, and many of them are disproportionately used by people who abuse alcohol. The focus, if there is any focus, ought to be on addiction services and trying to intervene with those who abuse alcohol rather than on the vast majority of people who enjoy a drink.
The hon. Member for Bootle, in his amusing speech—we will miss him on Thursday when he is no doubt raising a cheer to Cicero in whatever he is doing—noted that the industry contributes substantially to the Treasury. Some of those billions of pounds have to go to the NHS because of drinking, but the industry also generates a lot of money for good causes and things that the Government need to provide.
This is a matter of balance, and I think the Government have it right. There may come a time when prices have to go up. If incomes start to rise more substantially—we hope that will be a factor in a few years and that there is evidence that pay is picking up a bit—it may be time to review the taxes, but I think the Government have got this one right.
Robert Jenrick
I gather there may be a vote in a few moments’ time, but I will begin by addressing, in no particular order some of the points that have been raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. We are interested in the Scottish and indeed the Welsh Government’s actions on minimum unit pricing. It is fair to say that the jury is still out on whether that has been effective, but we will be watching with interest, as will the Department of Health and Social Care and Public Health England, and that will inform the decisions we take at future Budgets.
The hon. Lady asked about post duty point dilution. This is an issue that she has rightly highlighted, and a number of the producers who are likely to be affected by this and who are based in the UK will no doubt be asking the question she has asked. We intend to give this further consideration and lay draft legislation on L-day next year, in the early summer of 2019, with a view to legislating on it in the autumn Budget 2019 and its coming into force from April 2020. While I have spoken to some of the small number of British producers who will be affected and I note their concerns, this is a question of fundamental fairness in the duty system.
Kirsty Blackman
Perhaps I did not express myself very well. My constituents are lobbying for the change to be made; they are not lobbying against the change being made. I was asking when this would come in, because they are hoping for it to come in.
Robert Jenrick
It is coming in as swiftly as possible, although because of the impact on the small number of British manufacturers, we have given them some time at least—until April 2020—to make any adjustments they might need to.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole advanced what has been our approach to this issue—a nuanced one that helps those on low incomes to enjoy a drink, particularly at Christmas time. We are concerned, as he is, about supporting the British pub industry. As he says, the number of pubs has declined significantly. It is still declining, although it has stabilised somewhat in the last year or so. We are taking a number of actions, including freezing duties where appropriate, to help to support them.
My hon. Friend also made the point that the drink industry has a significant regional element to it, whether that is the Scottish whisky industry, which is very important to particular regions of Scotland where large numbers of distilleries are clustered in small areas, such as Moray or the areas around Aberdeen, or the cider industry in Herefordshire—where I grew up—and throughout the west country and Wales, which as we have heard has a particular resonance and supports local jobs. We have taken a nuanced approach, but where there are particular interventions that we feel we need to make, as with white cider, we have made them and will continue to make more in the future if that is required.
I now turn to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Bootle in his entertaining speech. I hope, Ms Dorries, that you did not have to reach for a stiff drink in the middle of it, although you might do by the time I have finished. [Laughter.] Well, we are about to talk about the retail prices index and the consumer prices index.
Peter Dowd
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 103, in clause 53, page 34, line 14, at end insert—
“(5) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expected effects on public health of the changes made to the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 by this section and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within one year of the passing of this Act.”—(Kirsty Blackman.)
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the impact of the revised rates on cider and wine on public health.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 55
Rates
Peter Dowd
I accept the point that you are making, Ms Dorries. I have moved the amendment and laid out our overall position on tobacco revenues, and on that basis I shall not take up the Committee’s time further.
Robert Jenrick
Clause 55 implements changes announced in the Budget concerning tobacco duty rates. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that the Government will increase tobacco duty in line with the escalator. The clause therefore specifies that the duty charged on all tobacco products will rise by 2% above RPI inflation. In addition, duty on hand-rolling tobacco will rise by an additional 1% to bring it to a total of 3% above RPI inflation this year.
The clause specifies with respect to the minimum excise tax—the minimum amount of duty to be paid on a pack of cigarettes—that the specific duty component will rise in line with cigarette duty. It also sets the rate for the new category of tobacco product, tobacco for heating, at the same rate applicable to hand-rolling tobacco. The new tobacco duty rates will be treated as taking effect from 6 pm on the day they were announced, 29 October, with the exception of the rate for tobacco for heating, which will take effect on 1 July 2019.
We recognise the potential interactions between duty rates and the illicit market. The Government have to be careful not to raise rates too far and fast, as that might exacerbate the illicit market. We included an important measure at the time of the Budget: the creation of a UK-wide anti-illicit trade group, bringing in law enforcement and representatives from the devolved Assemblies, and building on the good work done by the Scottish Government. We hope that that will mean we can take forward and intensify our efforts to tackle the illicit trade.
Amendment 100 would place a statutory requirement on the Chancellor to review the revenue effects of changes to tobacco duty, as we have just heard from the hon. Member for Bootle. The Chancellor assesses the impacts of all potential changes in the Budget considerations every year. The tax information and impact note published alongside the Budget announcement sets out the Government’s assessment of the expected impacts. Detail on the revenue impacts is set out in the policy costings document, which is also published alongside the Budget. Both include the expected revenue impact to 2023-24.
In addition, HMRC publishes a quarterly bulletin covering all excise duty receipts. The information that the amendment calls for will already be in the public domain for Members to scrutinise. It is not an area that requires further reviews and information, as there is no shortage of information in the public domain.
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point that, with the use of cigarettes declining, this is an area where we would expect revenues to fall in the years ahead. That is, of course, something that we take into account as we review duty rates for each fiscal event, with our two objectives, which I hope hon. Members will support: the primary objective is to protect public health, but the secondary one is to raise revenue to support vital public services.
I hope that I have reassured the Committee, and I ask that amendment 100 be withdrawn.
Peter Dowd
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Craig Whittaker.)
Finance (No. 3) Bill (Fifth sitting)
Robert Jenrick Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Reynolds
It is lovely to see you again in the chair, Ms Dorries, as we reconvene for this Committee’s second week. It is particularly good to see the Minister still here—I am never quite sure at the minute who will turn up on behalf of the Government.
I speak to Opposition amendments 73, 74 and 78 to clause 32, which focuses on first-year allowances and first-year tax credits. This measure would end the first-year allowance for all products on the technology and energy list and on the water technology list. Before I move on to why the Opposition feel strongly that the Government are wrong to end the first-year allowance, it is important to establish the extent of the allowance, its qualifications and the logic behind its introduction.
Enhanced capital allowances legislation was introduced in 2001 to encourage the use of energy-saving plant and machinery, low-emission cars, natural gas and hydrogen refuelling infrastructure, water conservation plant and machinery construction projects and so on. Under the relief, businesses that pay income or corporation tax can claim 100% of the first-year capital allowance on investment in ECA qualifying items. In addition, adoption of ECA qualifying items improve a project’s building research establishment environmental and assessment method—the BREEAM rating—and contribute to an improved energy performance certification rating.
To qualify, the item acquired must qualify as plant and machinery and satisfy the following criteria: it must not be second hand; the expenditure must have occurred after 1 April 2001; and the plant must either be a listed product or meet the energy saving or water conservation criteria specified by the Carbon Trust. Energy-saving technologies are things such as air-to-air energy recovery, automatic monitoring, boilers including biomass, combined heat and power units, compressed air equipment and so on. Water conservation technologies include efficient showers, taps and toilets, energy-efficient washing machines and more.
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy describes enhanced capital allowances as different from standard capital allowances. It estimates that enhanced capital allowances are between 5.5 and 12.5 times greater than ordinary capital allowance relief. This accelerated cost saving further shortens the period of time and builds the business case for investment in energy-efficient equipment.
It is clear that this allowance encourages businesses to mitigate their environmental footprint and is designed to help the UK transition to a green and low-carbon economy. It is therefore disappointing that at a time when, as we have already discussed in this Committee, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned that climate change is at the point of becoming irreversible, the Government would choose to end such an effective relief.
Despite the positive steps that national Governments are taking all over the world to get citizens to recognise and limit their personal carbon footprint, businesses clearly have a role to play, too. We feel that the best way is to incentivise businesses, making it worth their while to use energy-saving and water-conserving technologies through tax relief. Taking away first-year allowances with little notice would only further alienate business at a time when we all need to do what we can to transition our economy to deal with the realities of climate change.
Although in its policy notes the Treasury suggests that small and medium-sized businesses will be shielded and the vast majority will be able to claim relief under the separate annual investment allowance, it concedes that large businesses will face additional costs and some level of disruption. Similarly, the Chancellor has stated that the revenue saved will be used to fund the industrial energy transformation fund. However, details about the fund remain scant, aside from the fact that it will be targeted at smaller businesses and funded through the end of these first-year allowances.
From the Opposition’s perspective, the change appears to be little more than a rebranding exercise designed to take an effective relief—first-year allowances—away and simply redirect that revenue into the Chancellor’s new fund. It is far from the radical industrial strategy that the UK needs to ensure that businesses and citizens are equipped to deal with climate change and the evolving energy market.
In the Budget, the Chancellor announced a consultation on a new business energy efficiency scheme, yet there appears to be little mention of whether businesses were consulted about ending this vital relief. Opposition amendment 78 would therefore require the Chancellor to report on what consultation has taken place.
The Government’s decision to end first-year allowances for energy-saving and water conservation technologies raises a further question about the effectiveness of this relief. Put simply, it is not broken, so the Government need to explain why they are planning to scrap it. That is certainly the sentiment behind Opposition amendments 74 and 73, which would require the Chancellor to undertake a review of the cost of extending the allowance to the end of this Parliament, and to 2030, respectively.
The reality is that the changes made by the Government in clause 32 appear to be revenue-led. They put the short-term priorities of the Treasury ahead of the UK’s long-term obligation to tackle climate change. Rather than empowering businesses to do their part and invest in energy-saving and water conservation technologies, it appears likely to deter them. We cannot see the logic of that. If the Government are sincere in their desire to create a better-targeted and more effective relief, they need to offer the Committee further details about the supposed industrial energy transformation fund to replace first-year allowances. If the Committee is being asked to endorse that change, let us have all the details first.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. After two days in the reassuring embrace of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the Committee has a brief interlude.
Clause 32 will make changes to end, from April 2020, first-year allowances for all products on the energy technology list and the water technology list, including the associated first-year tax credit. The environmental first-year allowances aimed to encourage greater take-up of environmentally friendly technology. Capital expenditure by businesses on plant and machinery normally qualifies for tax relief by way of capital allowances. Environmental first-year allowances allow 100% of the cost of an investment in qualifying plant and machinery to be written off against taxable income in the year of investment, providing a cash-flow benefit. The first-year tax credit provides a tax credit for loss-making businesses that invest in qualifying items.
The first-year allowance was introduced in 2001 for products on the energy technology list, and in 2003 for products on the water technology list. However, the allowances have made the tax system more complex, and there is very limited evidence that they have driven greater uptake of such technologies. A report by the Office of Tax Simplification found significant barriers to accessing the allowances, including the administrative burden of making claims. Government analysis suggests that less than 25% of energy managers would increase investment in energy-saving technology because of the allowances, while fewer than 20% of manufacturers report a positive impact on sales.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The Minister makes an interesting case, but it is what I would have expected as part of the report required by amendment 75. Will the Government accept the amendment and provide us with the information in report form, rather than having the Minister stand up here and tell us?
Robert Jenrick
I will come to the amendment in a moment, but I hope I will be able to reassure the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde that we have already given the matter a great deal of thought and spoken to a number of stakeholders in the sector. Our actions are led by precisely the businesses that benefit from the existing reliefs.
For 99% of businesses, all plant and machinery is already eligible for full relief under the annual investment allowance, so the enhanced capital allowances provide no additional incentive. Smaller businesses such as those to which the hon. Gentleman refers have little if any reason to make use of those reliefs. The Government therefore believe that there are better ways to support energy efficiency.
The changes made by clause 32 will end the first-year allowances and the first-year tax credits from April 2020. In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question about little notice, there is a significant amount of notice, beginning with the Budget this year, and these first-year tax rates not ending until April 2020. That is the point at which the industrial energy transformation fund will be available. Those rates will still be available until then, which will give businesses the time they need to prepare for change. The Government will look to lay secondary legislation in 2019 and update the lists of eligible technology, so that they can still be used and will be updated to include the most efficient technologies in the meantime. There is no sense in which those measures will fall behind with technological change.
To give some extra detail on some of the flaws with the current first-year allowance for energy technology, we found very low levels of awareness, as I have already described. Manufacturers estimate that less than a quarter of their customers are even aware of the scheme, and it provided little additionality. As I have set out, fewer than 25% of energy managers reported that the scheme influenced their investment decisions, and fewer than 20% of manufacturers reported that, if they did use it, it made a positive impact on their sales and businesses.
Many tax advisers reported to us that their clients decided to make claims after they had chosen to invest in efficient technology, so it did not have the impact that we would have hoped. Small companies are much less likely than larger companies to benefit, and 99% of companies would already be able to make such investments under the annual investment allowance. A 2017 survey by the Federation of Small Businesses found that only a quarter of small business owners were even aware of the scheme.
Kirsty Blackman
Is the Minister not making the case for more consultation in advance of any tax changes? Clearly, this tax change did not achieve what the Government thought it would. The consultations and information asked for are even more vital if the Government are making mistakes and not achieving what they had hoped.
Robert Jenrick
It is pretty clear from the evidence I have just laid out that the current tax reliefs do not work. We are making the changes required to ensure that smaller businesses, through the increased annual investment allowance, will have the allowance they need to make these investments. We will now work closely with other businesses, through the design of the industrial energy transformation fund, and a full consultation on that will be launched at the beginning of next year. We encourage the hon. Lady, businesses and other members of the Committee to take part in that consultation, as we design the successor fund to these reliefs.
The Government remain committed to increasing environmental efficiency, and the savings from ending first-year allowances and tax credits will be used to fund the industrial energy transformation fund. That fund will help businesses with high energy use to cut their energy bills and reduce their carbon emissions, by supporting investment in energy efficiency and other innovative decarbonisation technologies that may become available in the years ahead. Those could include, for example, investment in carbon capture and storage, or fuel-switching technologies. However, decisions on the scheme design, including eligibility and the technologies that will be supported, will be subject to the consultation with industry that I have just described. Establishing the scheme will fulfil our manifesto commitment to establish an energy efficiency scheme for industry, and that has been widely welcomed, including by groups such as EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation; UK Steel and the Energy Intensive Users Group. Since the Budget, I have spoken to a number of heavy users of energy, including car manufacturers, who all welcome this measure.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that some businesses are concerned that the Government are ending one scheme without having another in place? That causes uncertainty for business at a time when they need more certainty than they have had for a long time.
Robert Jenrick
I hear that concern, and that was the reason we chose not to end the scheme immediately. The scheme will end in April 2020. Until then it will continue as it does today, and be regularly updated with new technologies. If a company that makes use of it knows of a new technology that it wants to be part of the scheme, it will be possible for that to be added. The scheme will continue exactly as is until April 2020, by which time the new one will be in place. As a result of this year’s Budget, the annual investment allowance will also go up to £1 million, so additional allowances will be available to those businesses.
Amendments 73 and 74 would require the Government to publish a review of the cost of extending first-year allowances to 2030 and 2022. As set out in the policy costings document that we published alongside the Budget, ending the allowances will save £160 million by 2021-22. As we announced in the Budget, savings from ending the allowances will be invested in an industrial energy transformation fund of up to £315 million. Our primary motivation is finding a better way to help businesses be more energy-efficient—not saving money for the Exchequer, as was suggested—and we believe that our approach makes more efficient use of public funds. We anticipate that the average annual cost of extending first-year allowances would remain at around the same level until 2030. The figures are already known and in the public domain, so I urge the Committee to reject amendments 73 and 74 because the information that they request is already available.
Amendments 75 and 76 would require the Government to publish a review of the impact of clause 32 on the energy and water technology sectors. I hope that I have already provided the Committee with an answer to those points, removing the necessity of such reports. As I have set out, there is little evidence that the first-year allowances lead to a greater uptake of environmental technology, so the Government do not believe that such reports would provide any significant additional information. Furthermore, the Government support business investment in other, more efficient and dynamic ways, through the increase in the annual investment allowance and the creation of the industrial energy transformation fund.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am listening carefully to the Minister, but if the increase in the annual investment allowance replaces the first-year allowances or mitigates their loss, it seems that there is no fiscal incentive to invest in energy-efficient or climate change-relevant technology. The Opposition believe that we should try to operate the policy as a fiscal instrument to direct investment into the technologies that we need, but I do not see that described in the Minister’s answer.
Robert Jenrick
I have described it; that is the rationale for replacing the first-year allowance with the energy transformation fund. Had we chosen simply to remove the allowances and replace them solely with the increase in the annual investment allowance, the hon. Gentleman would be correct: 99% of businesses could proceed broadly as they do today, but they would not have a specific incentive to choose environmental equipment, plant and machinery or energy efficiency measures. However, by coupling the increase in the annual investment allowance with the transformation fund, we hope to shift the dial in favour of technology that helps the environment.
Amendment 77 would require the Government to review the impact of clause 32 on the UK’s ability to meet its carbon budgets. I assure the Committee that there are already robust requirements to report on progress towards the UK’s emissions reduction targets. When the measures in the Budget and the Bill become law, they will become part of that regime.
The Climate Change Act 2008 provides a world-leading governance framework that ensures that progress towards carbon targets is robustly monitored and reported to Parliament. First, the Government are required to prepare and lay before Parliament an annual statement of emissions that sets out the total greenhouse gases emitted to and removed from the atmosphere across the UK, and the steps taken to calculate the net UK carbon account. Secondly, the independent Committee on Climate Change is required to prepare and lay before Parliament an annual report, to which the Government are required to respond, on the Government’s progress towards meeting the UK’s carbon budgets. I would expect the committee to take the changes made by clause 32 into account in their deliberations. Thirdly, the Government are required to prepare and lay before Parliament a statement that sets out performance against each carbon budget period and the 2050 target.
Clive Lewis
I thank the Minister for his patience. As I understand it, having requested an analysis from the Minister responsible for carbon budgets on whether the Government were going to take into account the recent evidence from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the 1.5° warming, the fourth and fifth carbon budgets do not currently do that. I have been told that there will be no assessment of the 1.5° warming until after 2030 when the fifth carbon budget concludes. Was the Minister aware of that and will he comment on the fact that that could have a severe impact on our ability to be able to achieve the targets?
Robert Jenrick
The IPCC will report in the usual way. It will not necessarily update its methodology, but it will lay before Parliament its usual statement and the Government will have to respond, as they have in every case. The Committee on Climate Change will hold the Government to account for the changes that we make, such as the ones in the Bill. That does not entirely answer the hon. Gentleman’s question on future targets. The mechanisms in place are strong and will ensure monitoring and reporting to Parliament of greenhouse gas emissions and of the Government’s responses. I therefore urge Members to reject amendment 77.
Amendment 78 would require the Government to report on any consultation undertaken on the provisions in clause 32. The Government consult stakeholders on an ongoing basis to inform all their policies. The provisions in clause 32 are no different. This includes, for example, surveys of relevant manufacturers and a call for evidence on helping businesses to improve the way they use energy, which was conducted by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. It would therefore not make sense to report further on the consultation that the Government have already undertaken on first- year allowances. Her Majesty’s Treasury Ministers meet manufacturers regularly, as I have said. I have met automotive manufacturers since the Budget and they welcome the changes.
The legislation was not released in draft because this is a simple abolition and does not constitute a measure that we would consult on normally. The Government stated in the new budget timetable and the tax-making process, which was published last year, that they will generally not consult on straightforward rates, allowances and threshold changes because they do not benefit from that process. I therefore urge Members to reject amendment 78.
The removal of the first-year allowances and associated first-year tax credits will allow the Government more effectively to support businesses to cut their energy bills and reduce carbon emissions. It will enable us to redirect the funds to the industrial energy transformation fund, which has been widely welcomed. I hope Members who are interested will take part in the consultation next year so that we can ensure it meets the requirements of industry and those who care about the environment. I therefore commend this clause to the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Robert Jenrick
After that excellent start, I will continue. Clause 33 extends the life of the first-year allowances for electric vehicle charge points until April 2023. In the UK, the continued use of high-emission vehicles creates pollution and increases health issues. This measure was first introduced on 23 November 2016 to support the transition in the UK to cleaner vehicles with zero or ultra-low emissions. The measure allows businesses that invest in charge points to reduce their taxable profits by 100% of the cost of their investment in the year it is made. That provides accelerated tax relief compared with normal capital allowances, and so encourages greater investment in these assets. The allowance is currently due to expire in April 2019. The clause enables the first-year allowance to continue as part of the Government’s ambition for all new cars and vans to be zero emission by 2040.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
Yesterday evening, for some light relief, I was going through emails from constituents. One constituent runs a business that installs electric charging points. Will the Minister illustrate for the Committee how he thinks that business will flourish as a result of these measures?
Robert Jenrick
The Government have taken two measures, the first of which was in the last Budget. That created an electric charge point investment fund— £200 million of public investment—which is designed to spur an extra £200 million of private investment. A business such as the one my hon. Friend describes could be part of that. The measure could enable the business to partner with the public sector and gain the capital that it needs to develop, and will be able to take advantage of the allowance and invest early. There are now two opportunities for such a business to take advantage of tax reliefs and public investment in order to grow rapidly and enter the market.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I do not deny the Minister’s point per se. Is there any implication that businesses that have chargers could be subject to a rating revaluation, which would put the cost of their business rate up? Perhaps the Minister could clarify that important point.
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point and I will reply—the powers that be will return to me in a moment.
The changes made by clause 33 will extend the current 100% first-year allowance for expenditure incurred on electric charge point equipment for a further four-year period until April 2023. That will encourage the increased use of electric vehicles by supporting the vital development and installation of charging infrastructure for such vehicles, to which drivers will look when deciding whether to buy them.
Robert Jenrick
Perhaps I could reply to the hon. Member for Bootle before taking a further intervention.
Robert Jenrick
Or not, as the case may be. We will have to write to the hon. Gentleman, I am afraid. He has outfoxed our officials.
Sir Robert Syms
Is the funding available to businesses also available to local authorities, because many of them put in charging points, or does that not apply to councils?
Robert Jenrick
I understand that this would apply only to private businesses. Other interventions help the public sector, such as the charging infrastructure investment fund, which local authorities can become involved in if they wish to develop infrastructure in their area. There were a number of wider measures in the Government’s Road to Zero strategy, including consulting on changes to the planning system to ensure that new business and residential properties, as well as public sector projects such as new council offices, hospitals and so on, are built with the infrastructure in place to support these vehicles.
The allowance will expire on 31 March 2023 for corporation tax purposes and on 5 April 2023 for income tax purposes. This extension is expected to have a negligible impact on the Exchequer. There are no anticipated costs to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and neither will there be any significant economic impact nor any additional ongoing costs for businesses beyond the investment that will be generated.
In conclusion, this extension will incentivise the use of cleaner vehicles by encouraging companies to invest in electric vehicle charge points, giving confidence to drivers to shift away from current combustion propelled options in the knowledge that the further roll-out of charge points will continue and accelerate in the years ahead, and reduce all the damage to the environment and public health that follows. I commend this clause to the Committee.
Jonathan Reynolds
Having just passed clause 32, which ended first-year allowances on the basis they were little known about and ineffective, I cannot help but comment how clause 33 extends the first-year allowance for another technology for four years on the basis it will provide the incentives and drive Government policy in that direction. Forgive me for pointing out that there are mixed messages from Ministers on these clauses.
It is disheartening that this is one of the relatively few mentions of environmental issues in the Finance Bill. We were all at Mansion House in June when the Chancellor gave a speech about how we would lead the way on green finance, yet there have been no legislative measures to follow up on that promise. We still lag behind our European counterparts on things such as mandatory climate disclosure laws or sovereign green bonds, but we should welcome any measures we like the look of when we see them.
Transport is a major source of emissions and we agree that we rapidly need to shift away from fossil fuels towards electricity and renewable sources and, to a certain extent, hydrogen for heavier vehicles. Thankfully, electric vehicles are coming through the system quickly and are expected to move rapidly through their cost curves, getting cheaper and cheaper. I have been hugely impressed by the electric vehicles I have experienced. Some estimates have cost parity for purchasing an electric vehicle as soon as 2022, after which buying an electric vehicle will become cheaper than buying a fossil fuel powered car.
The transition to a decarbonised, clean and smart economy will offer the UK many advantages, particularly considering how tech-savvy and early adopting much of the UK population is. The Nissan LEAF is the most-sold electric vehicle in the world. I say with some local pride, as someone born in Sunderland, that Sunderland has been the sole producer in Europe of the Nissan LEAF, creating over 50,000 vehicles. Of course, electric vehicle and hybrid production in the UK has provided a £3 billion trade surplus.
With a growing list of countries setting a date to ban combustion vehicles and modelling showing strong uptake curves, the global move to electric vehicles will be rapid. The first mover advantage to capture supply chains and jobs in this coming market will be considerable.
Robert Jenrick
I hope I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on those points. The first point was about why we would choose to extend this measure at the same time as bringing another to an end. We chose to bring the other one to an end because the evidence was not there to support its continuation. Having given the matter careful analysis, we believed that there was a better way forward.
We are still at a very early stage in the process. It is too early to assess the precise impact of this measure. We know that the total number of electric charge point connections has increased from more than 13,000 in November 2017 to more than 18,000 in October 2018—a 38% increase. Clearly, we would like that to accelerate even further, because that is still a small number across the whole of the country. We believe, anecdotally, that the measure is working and that it has been welcomed by the industry, but it is too early to assess that precisely. We are placing an extension in the Bill to ensure it can continue and to give certainty to the market. We will review this measure in time, as we have done with other measures, to determine its effectiveness. If it is not working correctly, we will take action accordingly.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the Budget did not do more for the environment. Of course, I contest that. The Budget did set out a wide range of measures to help the environment, from the new plastics tax, which will be consulted on and legislated on in the next Finance Bill—we hope it will be one of the world’s first plastic packaging taxes—to the measures already set out in the Finance Bill, such as this one and the vehicle excise duty measure on taxis, which we brought into effect a year early, and which has ensured that cities such as London and Manchester are seeing a great increase in low emission taxis.
We have already spoken about the industrial energy transformation fund, which we hope will put heavy users of energy on a more sustainable path. These things build on recent announcements, whether it is the industrial strategy and its commitment to the environment and to clean growth, or the Road to Zero strategy with respect to electric vehicles. Across Government, we are taking a wide range of measures to support the environment and to help businesses and individuals to cut their energy bills and lower carbon emissions.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the electric vehicle charging infrastructure fund. This was announced at the Budget last year, and we have now progressed the fund. We are in the final stages of selecting a fund manager, and once they are appointed we expect the fund to be formally launched and to start investing in early 2019. I hope to be able to give the hon. Gentleman and others more information on that very shortly so that businesses that wish to participate in it can start to access that £200 million and we can increase public and private investment in charging infrastructure very rapidly.
Small businesses, which the hon. Gentleman raised, will be able to claim under the annual investment allowances, which we have debated on a number of occasions. As I have said before, 99% of businesses will be able to claim under the annual investment allowances, which is a considerable increase as a result of the Budget and will help businesses that want to invest in this area.
On solar, the feed-in tariff scheme has supported over 800,000 small-scale installations, generating enough electricity to power 2 million homes. The scheme has helped to drive down the cost of renewable electricity, including small-scale solar photovoltaic. We therefore think it is right to protect consumers and to review the incentives as costs begin to fall. The Government—and indeed the Government before us—have made significant interventions in this area. With those reassurances, I hope the hon. Gentleman will support the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Qualifying expenditure: buildings, structures and land
Jonathan Reynolds
I beg to move amendment 79, in clause 34, page 19, line 38, at end insert—
“(4) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a report on any consultation undertaken on the provisions in this section within two months of the passing of this Act.”
This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report on any consultation undertaken on the provisions in this clause.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 84, in schedule 14, page 260, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (d).
The provision as drafted allows companies to transfer TTH worth double the value of anticipated decommissioning costs. This reduces the incentive for companies towards efficiencies in decommissioning costs and paves the way for decommissioning-related tax repayments far bigger than the companies are currently acknowledging. This amendment removes that provision.
Amendment 81, in schedule 14, page 261, line 29, at end insert—
“(aa) assessing the impact on employment, skills and the Exchequer from the asset’s production life and planned decommissioning phase, and”
Amendment 89, in schedule 14, page 261, line 42, at end insert—
“(d) includes an assessment of the impact on the Exchequer from the amount spent on directly employed and contracted staff by the seller over the production life of the asset to date; and the impact on the Exchequer from the buyer’s plans for employed and contracted staff up to and including the decommissioning stage.”
This amendment requires a decommissioning security agreement to include an assessment of the impact on the Exchequer from the amount spent on staff, in order for that agreement to be qualifying for the purposes of this Schedule.
Amendment 85, in schedule 14, page 268, line 40, at end insert—
“(aa) the amount spent by the purchaser in post-acquisition periods on new capital investment, major maintenance work, retraining of redundant staff, initiatives to reduce methane emissions or initiatives to introduce carbon-capture techniques into the operations in relation to the relevant TTH assets (‘post-acquisition qualifying investment’)”.
This amendment, and amendments 86 and 87 incentivize capital investment by new purchasers in job creation and emissions reductions. Combined, the amendments limit the TTH which may be claimed to an amount equal to such investment.
Amendment 86, in schedule 14, page 269, line 3 at end insert—
“(c) the amount by which total post-acquisition qualifying investment exceeded the higher of excess decommissioning expenditure and the total TTH amount as calculated for the first activation period under paragraph 35.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 85.
Amendment 87, in schedule 14, page 269, line 40, at end insert—
“(c) provided that the total activated TTH amount may never exceed the purchaser’s post-acquisition qualifying investment for the relevant TTH assets or TTH oil fields.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 85.
That schedule 14 be the Fourteenth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 37 stand part.
Robert Jenrick
Clause 36 and schedule 14 introduce a transferable tax history—TTH, as it has become known—mechanism, and clause 37 amends the petroleum revenue tax rules for retained decommissioning costs. Both measures will apply to oil and gas companies operating on the UK continental shelf, and to transactions that receive approval from the Oil and Gas Authority or relevant regulator on or after 1 November 2018.
These measures are designed to encourage investment in late-life oil and gas assets that are approaching the point of decommissioning, prolonging the life of the basin and sustaining jobs across the UK, but in particular in north-east Scotland. Decommissioning costs are generally incurred at the end of a field’s productive life, when taxable profits are not being generated. To provide tax relief for those costs, oil and gas companies within the UK’s ring fence tax regime can carry them back against taxable profits generated since 2002. That prevents decommissioning from being performed early for tax purposes, thereby helping to achieve the Government’s goal of maximising economic recovery of oil and gas.
When a new entrant without a history of taxable profits acquires an old field, there is a risk that the decommissioning costs of the field will exceed the taxable profits generated by the new owner, preventing effective tax relief via the traditional carry-back mechanism and leaving the buyer in a worse position than the seller would have been in. That can make old fields unattractive to new entrants and deter much-needed investment in this important industry. That is a growing problem in an ageing basin, but one that we now believe can be resolved by our innovative TTH measure.
The change to the PRT rules addresses the increasingly common scenario of a seller retaining some or all of a decommissioning liability after selling a field. The PRT system currently requires the seller to remain on the relevant production licence to receive tax relief for any retained costs. However, doing so often requires complex tax structuring that serves no particular purpose other than to protect the seller’s tax position.
The changes made by these measures will create the right environment for much-needed new investment in our older fields. They will introduce a TTH mechanism that provides new investors with the certainty that they require about the tax relief they will receive for decommissioning costs. That will allow new deals to proceed, injecting new energy into a basin that still has 10 billion to 20 billion barrels of oil remaining. Initial feedback from the industry has been extremely positive—this change is already well received internationally and is helping new deals to continue.
TTH will allow companies selling oil and gas fields to transfer some of their tax payment history to the buyers of those fields. The buyers will then be able to set the costs of decommissioning the field against the TTH to generate a repayment. It should be noted that that should not be an extra cost to the Exchequer, as the repayment only replaces what would otherwise have been made by the seller. It will level the playing field between sellers and buyers of oil and gas fields, encouraging investment by providing new entrants with certainty on the tax relief available for their decommissioning costs. The new investment into the basin as a result of TTH is expected to increase tax receipts from the sector by £75 million over the scorecard period.
The clause also makes changes to enable petroleum revenue tax relief when a seller retains a decommissioning liability. A tax deduction will now become available to the buyer where the seller subsequently incurs decommissioning expenditure or where the seller contributes to the buyer’s decommissioning costs. That will simplify the way that older oilfields can be sold to new investors and help to prolong their productive lives. Before turning to the amendments, I thank all hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, who participated in the discussions that led to this important measure, which we believe will help the community around Aberdeen in particular, but also those across the country.
Amendments 81 and 89 seek to amend the definition of a decommissioning security agreement within the TTH legislation in schedule 14. Decommissioning security agreements are specific commercial agreements that provide assurance to partners in a field for which funds will be available for decommissioning. The proposed changes to the definition would make the decommissioning security agreement required for a TTH election incompatible with the industry standard decommissioning security agreement, which, in our opinion, would make TTH elections impracticable and unworkable for the vast majority of our oil and gas fields, which rely on the well-established and respected industry standard agreement. TTH has been carefully designed to leverage estimates of decommissioning costs, which are already used in decommissioning security agreements, taking note of the history of the agreements. The agreements are confidential and, as one might imagine, highly commercially sensitive and are typically shared only between the joint venture partners and HMRC, in accordance with taxpayer confidentiality.
Kirsty Blackman
Will the Minister tell us a little bit about the process that the Government went through in creating the Bill, and the work done between the Government and industry to ensure that the legislation works?
Robert Jenrick
Yes, I will turn to that. As the hon. Lady knows—she participated in and attended at least one meeting I held in Aberdeen with the Oil and Gas Authority and stakeholders—we have carried out a great deal of careful consideration and consultation with the industry, because TTH will succeed only if it works for both the buyers and the sellers. Our sole objective is not to raise revenue for the Exchequer but to extend the life of the basin and to create jobs and investment for an important part of the United Kingdom.
The new investment encouraged by TTH will prolong the life of the basin, which has 10 billion to 20 billion more barrels left, helping to protect the hundreds of thousands of jobs I have already mentioned. We believe that the amendments would introduce counterproductive additional requirements and inhibit the use of TTH. I urge the Committee to reject them. They may be well intentioned, but they would be contrary to the objective of the measure.
Amendment 84 would limit the maximum amount of tax history that a seller can transfer under a TTH election. The TTH legislation currently caps the maximum amount of tax history that can be transferred under a TTH election to double the decommissioning cost estimate agreed for a decommissioning security agreement. Decommissioning costs are inherently uncertain and can increase significantly for reasons outside the control of the operator and for reasons that were unknown at the time of the sale. For that reason, they are typically subject to a very large range of accuracy. For fields still years away from decommissioning, the range often includes a 100% cost increase. TTH has been designed to be compatible with this regularly accepted range of estimates and to ensure that the buyer cannot end up in a worse position than the seller.
Kirsty Blackman
I agree with the Minister’s point about fluctuations. Does he agree that the cost of hiring boats has fluctuated massively over the past five years? If we had looked at this in 2010, we could not have predicted the fluctuations in just that small but nevertheless incredibly expensive area for oil and gas companies.
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Lady speaks from her deep knowledge of this area. It is absolutely right that some costs have fallen, particularly since the fall in the oil price, which has driven significant efficiencies in the sector, but other costs are rising. New technologies are coming on board. Taking on a project that entails such uncertainty while being tied to a single estimate of decommissioning costs, without a wide range as we have allowed in the measure, would be a major disincentive for a buyer coming in to one of these projects.
Let me address the concern inherent in the amendments about disincentivising cost-reduction, or that the measure, in providing such a wide field, would make it unlikely for buyers to try to reduce the cost and therefore would gain higher tax relief as a result. I think the buyer will retain a strong incentive to minimise total costs, as they will be liable for meeting the remainder of the decommissioning costs. The amendment is therefore unnecessarily restrictive and would harm TTH.
Amendments 85, 86 and 87 and schedule 14 would change the TTH activation mechanism to restrict decommissioning tax relief on a field, so that it could not exceed the level of new capital investment made by a purchaser. Decommissioning costs generally occur at the end of a field’s life, when its reserves are exhausted and new capital investment will not result in further economic recovery of oil or gas reserves. For many purchasers it would therefore not be practical to make significant capital investment during the decommissioning process.
Furthermore, requiring the purchaser to match what can be very high decommissioning costs with an equal level of new capital investment could easily bankrupt many of the smaller operators that we want to take part in the industry. The best way to ensure that we get new investment into the industry, to protect jobs and create new ones, and to maximise economic recovery of our natural resources, is to have an effective TTH mechanism. That is exactly what we believe we have achieved, as a result of the deep consultation that we have conducted with industry, which I will explain in a moment. The amendments would make TTH completely unattractive and ineffective. I therefore urge the Committee to reject them.
In answer to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, I will briefly summarise the steps that we have taken to consult with the industry since TTH was announced at Budget 2017. Even prior to Budget 2017, the topic had been discussed with stakeholders for some time. We have built on numerous discussions held between July and December 2016, by issuing at the time of the Budget a discussion paper on tax issues affecting late-life oil and gas assets. We received 28 detailed responses and then held an expert panel, working with the industry to design the measure. I myself held two meetings in Aberdeen this year with the Oil and Gas Authority and stakeholders. Draft legislation was published over the summer on L-day, for technical consultation with the industry. We received further feedback as a result and much of that has been incorporated into the final legislation. Although there are always ways to take the measure further, we believe we have reached a point where the industry is satisfied and welcomes the steps we have taken.
Peter Dowd
Trade unions have argued that more conditions need to be attached to TTH to bring it in line with OGA and maximising economic recovery objectives, and for broader commercial behaviours, which should include minimum compliance with UK employment law—workers being paid and employers paying tax and national insurance. Did that form any part of the discussions with the industry and stakeholders?
Robert Jenrick
I do not think we spoke specifically with trade unions but we did speak with a wide range of industry stakeholders. To return to TTH, its purpose is not to give an incentive to industry that it would not ordinarily have. The owner or operator of one of those fields would already be able to take advantage of those tax reliefs to set aside decommissioning costs, but they would be difficult to sell on to a new operator. This measure will make it much easier for new entrants to enter the market, for fields to continue or be developed further, and for jobs to be created that would not ordinarily be created. We believe that this is a win-win for all involved: for the Exchequer, which will make modest additional receipts as a result, for industry, and for all those employed in north-east Scotland—I see the hon. Member for Aberdeen North nodding. I believe this measure will be widely welcomed and well received by all stakeholders in the industry.
The best way to get new investment into our industry is, as I described, to protect jobs and maximise the economic recovery, and we believe that we have reached that point with this measure. The Government take their environmental responsibilities seriously, as we described when debating the previous clause. We have legally binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Climate Change Act 2008 and the system of carbon budgets it sets out, as well as the Paris agreement that we ratified in November 2016. Nothing in this measure takes away from our efforts elsewhere, but we want the UK oil and gas industry to continue to thrive. It has been through a difficult period following a significant reduction in the price of oil, and that price has fallen once more since the Budget. That industry makes an important contribution to the UK economy, supports more than 280,000 jobs, and provides around half our primary energy needs. To date, it has paid around £330 billion in production taxes. By introducing these changes for late-life oil and gas assets, we hope to encourage new investment in the UK continental shelf, and I commend the clause to the House.
Sir Robert Syms
In my lifetime, the greatest British success story has been the development of North sea oil. As the Minister set out very clearly, billions of pounds of taxation have been generated. Under successive Governments we have had a tax regime that has been balanced against the risk of the investment that companies have had to take. It is therefore perfectly sensible at this stage of the maturity of the oilfields to use tax policy to ensure that the oilfields continue longer and continue to create jobs and to support, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said, the worldwide oil services sector based in Aberdeen.
I thank the Minister for what he is doing, which is perfectly sensible. It will generate more tax revenue. I hope we will oppose the amendments because they would make an intended simplification of the tax system more complicated. At the end of the day, we want people to continue to pump oil in the North sea and keep the jobs rolling. The Government’s policy supports that.
Robert Jenrick
In the few minutes that remain, I wish to thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North for her comments and her helpful exposition of the purposes of this policy, which is to create jobs and wealth for the whole country, and particularly for the area that she represents. We would be concerned, as the hon. Lady said, if we created a two-tier system where new entrants—predominantly smaller and often innovative businesses that want to enter the market—had to live up to higher standards than the predominantly larger and more established businesses that they are trying to take on. As she has done, I thank some of the stakeholders who have helped us to develop this policy, including Oil & Gas UK, which has been excellent throughout the preparation of this measure.
Rather like my hon. Friend the Member for Poole, I am surprised by the Labour party’s position in this area. There has been a broad, cross-party consensus throughout my lifetime that North sea oil and gas are of benefit to the United Kingdom and an important asset to the country. Political risk will deter new investment into that field, if international companies that would like to invest in the North sea oil and gas sector believe that the Opposition in the United Kingdom are likely to increase their taxes, make those taxes more complex and disincentivise future investment.
Clive Lewis
We would like to put on the record that we are not giving up on North sea oil. Rather, we have an appreciation for the climate emergency that is taking place, and we ask for a reassessment of how we can sustainably recover those assets. That is all we are asking for.
Robert Jenrick
I will briefly answer some of those points. There has been a misunderstanding about the cost of the policy to the Exchequer. We believe, as is set out quite clearly, that over the scorecard period the measure will raise £65 million of revenue for the Exchequer. Because of the nature of the oil and gas industry and oil price fluctuations, that is a difficult assessment to make. However, we see no evidence for the more outlandish estimates in the press of a £3 billion cost to the Exchequer. Neither did the independent OBR, which checked our figures in relation to the measure and agreed that £65 million was an appropriate estimate over the forecast period. We believe that the measure is fiscally responsible because no additional tax relief will be due until the field is decommissioned. That will enable more fields to be developed, and decommissioning costs will be as they always were.
We see no evidence that the measure will disincentivise efficiency savings and productivity increases. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said, there is a great incentive on all parties to reduce the cost of decommissioning. The industry has signed up with Government to a target of reducing the costs of decommissioning by 35%. We would like them to go even further in the years ahead, and there is a lot of work going on to achieve that. We believe that the United Kingdom, particularly the area around Aberdeen, could be a world centre for decommissioning, and we are investing in facilities and training in that regard. We would like to work on that with the industry, because we see it as creating knowledge, new technology and jobs, which would then be exported to other fields around the world.
Kirsty Blackman
I am really pleased to hear the Government make that commitment in relation to the world centre for decommissioning. We are talking about one of the first oil and gas fields to decommission on a mass scale. It is important that the lessons that we learn from that are used to improve and export the technology.
Robert Jenrick
I think I have answered those points. There was a misunderstanding about decommissioning security agreements, which I hope I have answered. Decommissioning security agreements are confidential and commercially sensitive documents. Amendment 89 would not achieve the aim that the hon. Member for Norwich South set out, because such agreements will not be in the public domain. The documents will be received by HMRC, and decommissioning costs are regulated by the Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
Robert Jenrick ExcerptsTuesday 20th November 2018
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2019 View all Finance Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 20 November 2018 - (20 Nov 2018)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
I beg to move amendment 16, page 44, line 23, leave out “1 October 2019” and insert “1 April 2019”.
This amendment provides for the increase in the rate of remote gaming duty to take effect from 1 April 2019 instead of 1 October 2019.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 11, page 44, line 23, leave out “1 October 2019” and insert “the prescribed date”.
Government amendment 17.
Amendment 12, page 44, line 25, leave out “1 October 2019” and insert “the prescribed date”.
Amendment 13, page 44, line 32, at end insert—
“(4) In this section, ‘the prescribed date’ means the date prescribed in regulations made by statutory instrument by the Secretary of State
(5) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under subsection (4)—
(a) to prescribe a date before 1 October 2019, and
(b) unless regulations under section 236 of the Gambling Act 2005 have been made that amend the definition of sub-category B2 gaming machines so as to define such machines as having a maximum charge for use of no more than £2 with effect from a date no later than 1 April 2019.
(6) In this section, “sub-category B2 gaming machines” has the meaning given in regulation 5(5) of the Categories of Gaming Machine Regulations 2007/2158.”
Clause stand part.
Clause 62 stand part.
That schedule 18 be the Eighteenth schedule to the Bill.
New clause 12—Review of public health effects of gaming provisions—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the public health effects of the provisions of section 61 of and Schedule 18 to this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) A review under this section must consider—
(a) the effects of those provisions in reducing the negative public health effects of gambling, and
(b) the implications for the public finances of the public health effects of—
(i) those provisions,
(ii) the operation of the law relating to remote gaming duty and gaming duty if those provisions were not given effect.”
This new clause would require a review of the public health effects of gaming provisions.
New clause 13—Report on consultation on certain provisions of this Act (No. 3)—
“(1) No later than two months after the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a report on the consultation undertaken on the provisions in subsection (2).
(2) Those provisions are—
(a) section 61, and
(b) Schedule 18.
(3) A report under this section must specify in respect of each provision listed in subsection (2)—
(a) whether a version of the provision was published in draft,
(b) if so, whether changes were made as a result of consultation on the draft,
(c) if not, the reasons why the provision was not published in draft and any consultation which took place on the proposed provision in the absence of such a draft.”
This new clause would require a report on the consultation undertaken on certain provisions of this Act – alongside new clauses 9, 11 and 15.
New clause 16—Review of remote gambling duty—
“(1) The Treasury shall undertake a review of the increase in the rate of remote gambling duty introduced in section (Remote gambling duty (rate)) of this Act.
(2) The review shall consider, in particular, the effects of the rate increase on—
(a) the public revenue,
(b) betting shops, and
(c) gambling related harm.
(3) The Treasury review must include independent advice on the feasibility and impact of bringing forward the date of the increase in remote gaming duty to 1 April 2019.
(4) The Treasury review of the effects of the rate increase in remote gambling duty under subsections (2) and (3) must also take into account any effects of reducing to £2 the maximum stake on B2 machine games with effect from 1 April 2019.
(5) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay a copy of a report of the review under this section before the House of Commons no later than 28 days after this Act is passed.”
This new clause requires the Treasury to review the feasibility and impact of bringing forward from October 2019 the implementation of an increase in remote gambling duty, which is linked in paragraph 3.68 of the Budget 2018 Red Book to the implementation of a £2 maximum stake on B2 machine games (fixed-odds betting terminals).
Robert Jenrick
As you have just described, Dame Eleanor, we begin today’s consideration of the Finance Bill with clauses 61 and 62 and schedule 18. The parts of the Bill that we are about to discuss concern rates of remote gaming duty and other gaming duty measures. Gambling policy more generally and its related legislation, such as the Gambling Act, are matters for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and lie outside the scope of a Finance Bill, but I want to explain both the fiscal measures in this Bill and how they interact with wider important matters, such as fixed-odds betting terminals.
Turning briefly to clause 62 and schedule 18, which deal with changes to gambling duty accounting periods, this Government are committed to reducing administrative burdens on businesses and to making the tax system more effective, efficient and simpler. The changes will bring gaming duty paid by land-based casinos in line with other gambling duties. They will allow casinos to roll forward losses and will remove the requirement to pay duty on account, reducing administration for businesses and for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. The changes are expected to have a negligible impact on the tax take from casinos, which will continue to be subject to a tax structure that ensures that the most successful casinos pay up to 50% of their profit to support public services. That take will total £250 million to the Exchequer in the current financial year.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I hope to speak later if possible, but this is a rare example of when parliamentary arithmetic has got the Government to do something that will be good for them and good for the population. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on fixed odds betting terminals, who has led a cross-party group over the years—this is not just about those who have come in lately—to ensure that the arguments are right, as well as the parliamentary arithmetic.
Robert Jenrick
I praise my hon. Friend for his role in this matter, and I will come in due course to the hon. Member for Swansea East and other colleagues who have played a decisive role in these events.
In deciding on a date for implementation, the Government were obliged to consider not just those who would have been harmed by FOBTs, but the impact on wider society—the tens of thousands whose livelihoods would be at risk following the new stake. Stakeholder evidence varied considerably, but it was widely acknowledged that there would be a significant impact, whether as a result of the cap in itself or because the decision to change the cap would bring forward wider changes that were already likely to occur in a sector undergoing a great deal of change as a result of new technology. The Government have not wavered from their commitment to set a £2 stake and considered the best way to mitigate the negative impacts of the policy on the individuals and their employers, giving them time to prepare for the impact if possible. Accordingly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport published a written statement confirming that a £2 maximum stake will be implemented from April 2019, and we have tabled Government amendment 16 to reflect that.
I will now briefly describe the events leading up to this point. When we announced the decision to reduce the stake, implementation in April 2020 was a date that I discussed with the hon. Member for Swansea East when she came to the Treasury in late spring to talk about the matter. A decision was then taken by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to consult informally with stakeholders and it was then proposed in the Budget to bring forward the date to October 2019. The decision was, I believe, intended in good faith to represent a balance between expeditiously bringing an end to the harm caused by FOBTs and enabling those working in the sector to prepare for the implications for them. None the less, it became abundantly clear that a large number of colleagues disagreed and wished to see the stake change implemented sooner, which is exactly what we have done.
I am grateful for the counsel and the campaigning zeal of a number of Members on both sides of the Chamber, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) and, of course, the hon. Member for Swansea East, whom I respect and whom I have enjoyed working alongside throughout this process.
I admire my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who was an outstanding Sports Minister and is a great Member of Parliament. She clearly played a decisive role in the Government’s decision to reduce the stake in the first place and, indeed, to do so expeditiously in April 2019. I have always believed that, in politics as in life, all we have is our reputation, and she chose her principled belief that this change must be implemented as soon as possible over her role in government. I respect that, and I am sure Members on both sides of the Committee do so, too.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I fully accept what the Minister says about the reputation of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), but does he agree that these things should not have necessitated her departure when she was doing such a good job? I do not expect the Minister to express an opinion, just that it would have been better otherwise.
Robert Jenrick
I clearly hear my right hon. Friend’s point, and I have fairly set out the chain of events that led to this moment. As I said, I enormously respect my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford and her decision. When I was first elected to Parliament, an elderly constituent sent me a quote by John Quincy Adams:
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”
On this occasion, of course, my hon. Friend is not alone, and I am grateful for her work in this area.
Government amendment 17 complements Government amendment 16, both of which relate to amendments 12 and 13. As I have just set out, the Government recognise the strong will of the House that the implementation date for the new maximum stake for fixed odds betting terminals be brought forward to April 2019. The Treasury has been clear throughout the process that we do not seek to use the issue of FOBTs to increase Exchequer revenues, but we do have a responsibility, which I hope Members on both sides of the Committee will recognise, to protect the public finances and to ensure that we have the means to fund our public services. The cost of eliminating the damage caused by FOBTs must not be paid for by our having fewer doctors, fewer teachers and fewer people working in mental healthcare.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
I welcome this change. In my constituency there are betting shops sandwiched between pubs and chemists giving out substitution treatments. Does the Minister not agree that the savings to the public purse from preventing people from falling into problematic debt, and preventing highly addicted people from falling into other troubles and needing to rely on the NHS and other services, will be far greater than the tax received from these gambling machines?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend makes an important point that has been raised by many others and that I am sure was a significant contributor to the decision of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to take this action.
The point I am making is a separate one; that in making the decision to reduce the cap on FOBTs, we want to ensure that the Exchequer can protect its revenues so it can continue to fund public services. To do so, clause 61 increases the rate of remote gaming duty to 21% from 15%, and amendment 17 complements amendment 16 by ensuring that both changes are implemented at the same time in April 2019.
Throughout this process the Treasury has been clear that we want to raise only a commensurate sum of money to protect public services, and that we want to ensure that both the stake change and the change in taxation occur at the same time. That is exactly what we intend to do. This increase applies to anyone who offers online games of chance to UK players, including online roulette, online poker and online slots. This change should ensure that we take decisive action on FOBTs without having to cut services or raise taxes on those outside the gambling sector. To recognise this, I ask the Committee not to press amendments 12 and 13 and to support Government amendment 17.
New clause 12 would require the Chancellor to prepare a report describing the public health effects of the gambling clauses in this Finance Bill, for publication before the House within six months of Royal Assent. The Government take the impact of gambling on individuals’ health seriously, which is why we have listened to Members on both sides of the House and taken the action we have on FOBTs. This summer the Gambling Commission published a well-received paper on how to measure gambling-related harms, setting out how it intends to move forward in such a large and vital area of analysis. I hope that colleagues on both sides of the Committee agree that the Gambling Commission should be left to carry out its important work in this area without the Treasury attempting to carry out its own competing analysis on the very limited effect on public health of a change in accounting periods, which is what the new clause would bring into effect.
Graham P. Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I welcome that assessment, but does the Minister accept that the assessment needs to look at the various forms of gambling and that it also needs to consider the amount of gambling advertising presented to people on our television screens?
Robert Jenrick
As a parent and as a citizen I am concerned, like the hon. Gentleman is, about the amount of gambling advertising on television and elsewhere, but that is not a matter for the Finance Bill; it is a matter for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and for the Gambling Commission.
As I have just described, new clause 12 would achieve only the Treasury producing a very limited analysis of the public health impact of the change in accounting period set out in the Finance Bill. I therefore urge the Committee not to press new clause 12.
New clause 13 proposes a report on the consultation undertaken on the detail of clause 61 on remote gaming duty and of schedule 18 on gaming duty. Although we have had much debate on the content and implications of clause 61, it is in fact very simple: it is a rate change, and the Government would not normally consult on such a change. I reassure the Committee that we have gone over and above the usual convention in such cases. The increase was originally proposed in May 2018, and my officials, alongside the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, have since worked with interested parties on its detail. We believe we are in a good position.
I fully reassure the Committee that the change made by clause 61 was consulted on last year. In addition, schedule 18 was published as a clause in the draft Finance Bill in July 2018. It has therefore been subject to scrutiny and comment by stakeholders ever since. I hope my comments will reassure the Committee that there is no need for a further report into our consultation on these issues, and I therefore ask that new clause 13 not be pressed.
New clause 16 returns to an issue with which I began this debate. The new clause asks for a review of the feasibility of bringing forward the rise in remote gaming duty in clause 61 to April 2019. As I have tried to reassure right hon. and hon. Members, we have already covered these matters—they were considered before my right hon. Friend the Chancellor tabled amendments 16 and 17, which will bring forward the date to April 2019—and I therefore respectfully ask that new clause 16 not be pressed.
I look forward to listening to the contributions of right hon. and hon. Members to this debate. The Government amendments to these clauses represent the action on FOBTs that the country demanded and for which Members on both sides of the House have campaigned assiduously over many years. The changes will now be delivered as expeditiously as possible and in a fiscally responsible manner that protects public services. I commend these changes to the Committee.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Well, where to begin? I can sum up the Minister’s speech as, “Nothing to see here.”
Before I move on to the detail of this issue, I want to pay tribute to Members on both sides of the House who forced the Government to bring forward the FOBT stake reduction from October 2019 to April 2019, which will be implemented through the amendment before the Committee. Particular recognition goes to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who is to be warmly congratulated on her tireless work for social justice, in all its incarnations, and to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson), the shadow Secretary of State, who is not in the Chamber, but has spoken about this issue many times from the Dispatch Box.
Patricia Gibson
Absolutely. There is a correlation between multiple social deprivation factors and problem gambling, which is why certain communities have a higher concentration of betting shops housing these machines—the crack cocaine machines of gambling—than there otherwise would be.
I say to the Minister, and I know he is listening, that we absolutely and urgently need a review of the public health effects of gaming provisions. On that basis, I urge the House to support new clause 12—
Patricia Gibson
I was about to finish, but obviously I will let the Minister speak.
Robert Jenrick
Before the hon. Lady concludes her remarks, may I draw her attention to two things? I am told that Public Health England has been asked by the Department of Health and Social Care to inform and support action on gambling and its related harms as part of its follow-up to the DCMS review of gaming machines and social responsibility. Public Health England is also being commissioned by the Gambling Commission to do an evidence review on problem gaming, which I hope will go some way to answering the questions that she and others have raised today.
On new clause 12, which the hon. Lady raised—other hon. Members have also done so, including my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch)—I am content for the Government to support it, but I would simply say that it is very limited in scope. I would not want to raise expectations that it will achieve all of the goals that the hon. Lady seeks. However, that, allied to Public Health England’s work, will perhaps help to continue the public debate on this matter.
Patricia Gibson
I am glad that the Minister has given us that clarification. As he says, I would be more comfortable with a broadbrush approach encompassing lots and lots of factors, such as I those I set out in my speech. However, I have listened to what the Minister has said, and I will certainly give it some thought.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
Robert Jenrick ExcerptsMonday 19th November 2018
(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2019 View all Finance Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 19 November 2018 - (19 Nov 2018)
The Temporary Chairman (Sir George Howarth)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 69 to 77 stand part.
Amendment 10, in clause 78, page 51, line 32, after “may”, insert—
“(subject to section (Review of expenditure implications of Part 3))”.
Antecedent to new clause 10.
Clause 78 stand part.
Amendment 14, in clause 89, page 66, line 30, at end insert—
“(1A) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, no later than the date provided for in subsection (1C), lay before the House of Commons a statement of the circumstances (in relation to the outcome of negotiations with the EU) that give rise to the exercise of the power.
(1B) The statement under subsection (1A) must be accompanied by—
(a) an assessment of the fiscal and economic effects of the exercise of those powers and the circumstances giving rise to them;
(b) a comparison of those fiscal and economic effects with the effects if—
(i) a negotiated withdrawal agreement and a framework for a future relationship with the EU had been agreed to, and
(ii) the United Kingdom had remained a member of the European Union;
(c) a statement by the Office for Budget Responsibility on the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the assessment under paragraph (a) and the comparison under paragraph (b).
(1C) The date provided for in this subsection is—
(a) a date which is no less than seven days before the date on which a Minister of the Crown proposes to make a motion for the purposes of section 13(1)(b) of the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 and after the passing of this Act, or
(b) a date which is no less than seven days before the date on which a Minister of the Crown proposes to make a motion for the purposes of section 13(6)(a) of the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 and after the passing of this Act, or
(c) a date which is no less than seven days before the date on which a Minister of the Crown proposes to make a motion for the purposes of section 13(8)(b)(i) of the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 and after the passing of this Act, or
(d) the date on which this Act is passed,
whichever is the earliest.”
This amendment requires the first use of the powers intended to modify tax legislation in the event of a no deal Brexit to be accompanied by a statement of the circumstances and a comparative analysis of their impact, accompanied by an OBR assessment.
Amendment 15, page 66, line 30, at end insert—
“(1A) No regulations under this section may be made until the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid a statement before the House of Commons setting out—
(a) a list of the powers in relevant tax legislation that the Treasury has acquired since June 2016 in connection with the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union,
(b) a list of the powers in relevant tax legislation the Treasury expects to acquire if—
(i) a withdrawal agreement and a framework for a future relationship with the European Union have been agreed to, or
(ii) the United Kingdom has left the European Union without a negotiated withdrawal agreement.
(c) a description of any powers conferred upon the House of Commons (whether by means of the approval or annulment of statutory instruments or otherwise) in connection with the exercise of the powers set out in subsection (b).”
Amendment 22, page 66, line 30, at end insert—
“(1A) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, no later than a week after the passing of this Act and before exercising the power in subsection (1), lay before the House of Commons a review of the following matters—
(a) the fiscal and economic effects of the exercise of those powers and of the outcome of negotiations for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union giving rise to their exercise;
(b) a comparison of those fiscal and economic effects with the effects if a negotiated withdrawal agreement and a framework for a future relationship with the EU had been agreed to;
(c) any differences in the exercise of those powers in respect of—
(i) Great Britain, and
(ii) Northern Ireland;
(d) any differential effects in relation to the matters specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) in relation between—
(i) Great Britain, and
(ii) Northern Ireland.”
Amendment 7, page 67, line 1, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) No statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.”
This amendment would make clause 89 (Minor amendments in consequence of EU withdrawal) subject to affirmative procedure.
Amendment 20, page 67, line 2, at end insert—
“(5A) No regulations may be made under this section unless the United Kingdom has left the European Union without a negotiated withdrawal agreement.”
Amendment 2, page 67, line 13, at end insert—
“(7) This section shall, subject to subsection (8), cease to have effect at the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(8) The Treasury may by regulations provide that this section shall continue in force for an additional period of up to three years from the end of the period specified in subsection (7).
(9) No regulations may be made under subsection (8) unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.”
Clause 89 stand part.
Amendment 8, in clause 90, page 67, line 16, after “may”, insert—
“(subject to subsections (1A) and (1B))”
This amendment is antecedent to Amendment 9.
Amendment 9, page 67, line 18, at end insert—
“(1A) Before proposing to incur expenditure under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must lay before the House of Commons—
(a) a statement of the circumstances (in relation to negotiations relating to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union) that give rise to the need for such preparatory expenditure, and
(b) an estimate of the expenditure to be incurred.
(1B) No expenditure may be incurred under subsection (1) unless the House of Commons comes to a resolution that it has considered the statement and estimate under subsection (1A) and approves the proposed expenditure.”
This amendment would require a statement on circumstances (in relation to negotiations) giving rise to the need for, as well as an estimate of the cost of, preparatory expenditure to introduce a charging scheme for greenhouse gas allowances. The amendment would require a Commons resolution before expenditure could be incurred.
Clause 90 stand part.
New clause 10—Review of expenditure implications of Part 3—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expenditure implications of commencing Part 3of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) No regulations may be made by the Commissioners under section 78(1) unless the review under subsection (1) has been laid before the House of Commons.”
This new clause would require a review within 6 months of the expenditure implications of introducing a carbon emissions tax. It would prevent Part 3 coming into effect until such a review had been laid before the House of Commons.
New clause 11—Report on consultation on certain provisions of this Act (No. 2)—
“(1) No later than two months after the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a report on the consultation undertaken on the provisions in subsection (2).
(2) Those provisions are—
(a) sections 68 to 78,
(b) section 89, and
(c) section 90.
(3) A report under this section must specify in respect of each provision listed in subsection (2)—
(a) whether a version of the provision was published in draft,
(b) if so, whether changes were made as a result of consultation on the draft,
(c) if not, the reasons why the provision was not published in draft and any consultation which took place on the proposed provision in the absence of such a draft.”
This new clause would require a report on the consultation undertaken on certain provisions of this Act – alongside new clauses 9, 13 and 15.
New clause 17—Review of the carbon emissions tax (No. 2)—
“Within twelve months of the commencement of Part 3 of the Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the carbon emissions tax to determine—
(a) the effect of the carbon emissions tax on the United Kingdom’s carbon price in the context of non-participation in the European Union emissions trading scheme, and
(b) the effect of the carbon emissions tax on the United Kingdom’s ability to comply with its fourth and fifth carbon budgets.”
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
In these parts of the Bill, we make sensible preparations for our exit from the European Union. While right hon. and hon. Members across the House may well disagree on Brexit, I would hope that all would wish to see us prepare as carefully as possible so that we can maintain the stability of the tax system; provide as much certainty for the taxpayer as possible; in respect of carbon pricing, meet our commitments to the environment; and do all those things in all eventualities, including in the event of no deal, which is clearly not the Government’s preference but remains a possibility.
At Budget, the Government announced essential provisions to ensure that the tax system can continue to function in any outcome.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The Minister talks about preparations for no deal. In the OBR’s “Blue Book”, it quoted assessments made by economists who suggested that the economy had already shrunk by between 2% and 2.5% since the referendum, and the Library has suggested that that has cost the UK economy anywhere between £40 billion and £50 billion. Does he agree with that assessment, and what work has been going on in the Treasury to account for it?
Robert Jenrick
What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that the economy has been growing for eight years—for five years, in every successive quarter. Unemployment is at its lowest rate in my lifetime and employment is at its highest. The British economy is sound and robust, and that is exactly why in the Budget the Chancellor was able to make the tax cuts for 32 million of our citizens and the increased spending on the NHS.
Robert Jenrick
I will not give way again at this stage, but I could come back to the hon. Gentleman later.
The changes that we have outlined in these clauses will, I hope, signal that the UK is committed to maintaining stability and certainty for taxpayers and for businesses across the economy, especially in respect of the environmental tax provisions that I will talk about in a moment. Clauses 69 to 78 will allow the Government to introduce a carbon emissions tax to replace the EU emissions trading scheme—the ETS—in the event of no deal. Clause 90 will allow for essential preparatory expenditure to begin work on a domestic emissions trading scheme in the event that one is required. Clause 89 will introduce a power to make minor technical amendments to UK tax legislation—essential for maintaining the continued effect of the tax system.
Let me turn first to clauses 68 to 78 with respect to the carbon emissions tax. These clauses will take effect only if the UK leaves the European Union in 2019 without a deal. The clauses will give the Government the power to introduce a no-deal carbon emissions tax. The rate for 2019 would be set at £16 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent, and the tax would cover the same electricity generators and industrial businesses that currently participate in the EU ETS. The tax would provide the same protections against carbon leakage as the EU ETS. Operators would pay the tax only on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted above an allowance set for each installation in advance of the tax year. This is in line with the EU ETS system of free emissions allowances.
In effect, the carbon emissions tax would seek initially to replicate the effects of the EU ETS as closely as possible, in the event of no agreement. This is important, as I hope hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree, for two reasons: first, because we want to provide certainty for businesses and for the energy industry to enable them to make investment and business decisions with confidence, as the industry has asked us to do; and secondly, because maintaining a carbon price is a key component of meeting our legally binding climate change commitments.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister accept that now that the Government have greater freedom of operation, this is fairly timid? We have an emissions crisis in this country, as we do across the rest of the world. Why are the Government not being more ambitious in trying to bear down on emissions, as seen in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report?
Robert Jenrick
I appreciate the point the hon. Gentleman makes, but perhaps he has missed the argument I have tried to make, which is that this is not prejudging the later outcome of how we should handle our carbon pricing as we leave the EU; it is trying to ensure that in the unlikely event, which the Government wish to avoid, of a no-deal Brexit we can maintain the system as close as possible to the present one. We chose the price of £16 because that is broadly the same as where the EU’s floating price has been in recent months. Of course the price has floated very widely from as low as £6 to as high as over £20, so making that assessment is not a precise exercise, but we believe that £16 is a reasonable figure to maintain stability, and that seems to have been well received by the industry and environmental groups.
Clause 90 is about preparatory expenditure. Alongside preparing for no deal, the Government are developing long-term alternatives to the EU emissions trading scheme. As set out already in the outline political declaration on the future relationship between the EU and the UK, we are considering options for co-operation on carbon pricing, including, if possible, linking a UK national greenhouse gas emissions trading system with the EU ETS. Clause 90 will allow Departments to begin preparatory expenditure on a UK ETS, which is included in the Bill, to prepare for a linked or unlinked domestic trading scheme. It does not mean, as I said earlier, that a final decision has been made as to which option to implement, but it does ensure that all the options are kept open and we can proceed with the kind of planning that one would expect.
I shall now turn briefly to amendments 8, 9 and 10 and new clause 10 tabled by the SNP. Amendments 8 and 9 propose that the Government must table a statement on the circumstances that require expenditure in the case of clause 90 and an estimate of the expenditure to be incurred and that the House would come to a resolution to approve that expenditure. New clause 10 and amendment 10 would require the Chancellor to review the expenditure implications of the carbon emissions tax and lay a report of that review before the House within six months of the passing of the Bill, and no regulations could be made by the commissioners unless that had taken place.
A statement of circumstances, as required by amendments 8 and 9, is in our opinion unnecessary. We are legislating because the UK is leaving the EU, and as part of that we have to prepare a domestic ETS, as mentioned in the outline political declaration, and for a carbon emissions tax only in the event of no deal.
More importantly, with all these amendments, the Finance Bill is not and has never been the place for detailed questions of expenditure. The Finance Bill is primarily a Bill about tax. Parliament gets other opportunities to review and vote on departmental expenditure, and if that is important to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), I suggest that she direct her scrutiny to the estimates process when it arises in due course.
New clause 17 would require the Chancellor to review the carbon emissions tax to determine its effect on the UK carbon price and the UK’s ability to comply with its fourth and fifth carbon budgets. We are confident that the carbon emissions tax would be similarly effective to the EU ETS, and I can assure Members that there are already robust requirements to report on progress towards the UK’s emissions reductions targets. For example, the Climate Change Act 2008 provides a world-leading governance framework that we certainly support. First, it ensures that the Government are required to prepare and lay before Parliament an annual statement of emissions, setting out the total amount of greenhouse gases emitted to, and removed from, the atmosphere across the UK and the steps taken to calculate the net UK carbon accounts. Secondly, the independent Committee on Climate Change is required to prepare and lay before Parliament an annual report on the Government’s progress towards meeting the UK’s carbon budgets, which the Government are required to respond to. Thirdly, the Government are required to prepare and lay before Parliament a statement setting out performance against each carbon budget period and the 2050 target. We believe that, taken together, these are strong existing mechanisms, which are respected and understood, to ensure that we monitor and report to Parliament on greenhouse gas emissions. I therefore urge hon. Members to reject new clause 17.
Let me turn to amendments 2, 7 and 21 to clause 89, which deals with minor amendments in consequence of our EU withdrawal. We need to ensure that the tax system continues to work effectively and that we maintain stability and certainty, including in the event that the UK leaves without a deal. To allow us to do that, clause 89 will allow minor technical amendments to be made to UK tax law to keep it working as it does now and to update it to continue to work with changes made to other areas of law on account of EU exit. Clause 89 will provide the Government with the power to make such minor amendments.
These are, I stress again, minor and technical changes that are absolutely necessary to maintain the continued effect of tax legislation in the unlikely event of no deal. I can reassure the Committee that the power is not being taken to make changes to do anything other than ensure that existing tax legislation continues to have effect in the event of no deal. It will not be used to change tax policy or the tax paid by taxpayers. To reassure the Committee of that, I have placed a list of changes that the Government intend to make under the power in the Library and sent a copy to the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
Vicky Ford
I thank the Minister for reaffirming that it is not the Government’s intention to leave with no deal. It is the intention to leave with a deal. On tax, there seemed to be some confusion over the weekend about the draft withdrawal agreement. Some people seemed to suggest that the UK would be bound into the EU tampon tax for a further five years. Can he confirm that under the withdrawal agreement, VAT on goods sold after the transition period will be subject to rates set by the British Government, not EU law?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend, who is always well informed, is correct on both counts.
Vicky Ford
I thank my hon. Friend for confirming that from the Dispatch Box. Does he therefore agree that, before jumping to conclusions about what the draft withdrawal agreement says, colleagues should instead look at No. 10’s response to Steerpike’s 40 so-called horrors and at the true facts and answers from the lawyers who negotiated it before coming up with their own concerns?
Robert Jenrick
I would obviously advise all right hon. and hon. Members to read the withdrawal agreement, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, and not to rush to conclusions. The document produced by No. 10 to which my hon. Friend refers, which rebuts over 40 suggested flaws in the agreement, was very instructive, and I certainly found it helpful.
To finish on this point, I re-emphasise that I have laid before the House a comprehensive list of the changes that will need to be made to tax legislation. I advise right hon. and hon. Members who are interested to take a look at it. They will see that the changes are indeed minor and technical items that are not, I hope, controversial.
Amendments 14 and 22 would require the Government to publish an economic and fiscal analysis of the effects of our exit from the European Union before using the powers in clause 89. I can reassure the Committee that the Government have already confirmed that before we bring forward the vote on the final deal, we will ensure that Parliament is presented with the appropriate analysis in good time to make an informed decision. The Chancellor set that out in his letter of 23 August to the Chair of the Treasury Committee, a copy of which is in the public domain. He said that that analysis would look at the economic and fiscal effects of leaving the EU.
To provide Members with further detail today, I can confirm that that analysis will bring together evidence from across the Government, insight from external stakeholders and a range of data and analytical tools. The analysis will consider the long-term costs and benefits of moving to new trading relationships with the EU and the rest of the world. Having considered the amendment and spoken to several right hon. and hon. Members, I am happy to confirm that the baseline for this comparison will be the status quo—that is, today’s institutional arrangements with the EU. The analysis will consider a modelled no-deal scenario, or World Trade Organisation terms; a modelled analysis of an FTA scenario; and a modelled analysis of the Government’s proposed deal. Each will be compared against the status quo of the current institutional arrangements within the EU.
Amendment 14 would not require the analysis to be published until after the Bill receives Royal Assent. As a result, the Bill would not be binding on the Government until after the meaningful vote had taken place. I hope that the commitment that the Government have made today and the conversations that I have had with Members from across the House will provide reassurance that we will publish an appropriate analysis—the analysis that right hon. and hon. Members seek—in good time before the meaningful vote.
I turn briefly to the OBR’s role, which is mentioned in amendment 14. The House will know that the OBR’s remit is clearly defined in the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, and that the amendment, which asks the OBR to assess our analysis of the effects of a deal, goes beyond its statutory responsibilities. That would set an undesirable precedent, with Parliament being able to commission specific pieces of work from the OBR on an ad hoc basis outside the clear and bounded remit set in the OBR’s charter. That would effectively transform the OBR into a parliamentary budget office, fundamentally changing its purpose and potentially damaging its credibility. Such a decision should be taken only after a full and frank debate on its own merits.
The House will be aware that the Treasury Committee, which is headed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), has appointed Sir Stephen Nickell, formerly of the OBR, to provide an independent view of the Government’s analysis. My officials have already had initial conversations with Sir Stephen about the scope and scale of his review, to ensure that we can provide him and his team with the necessary information in due course. I hope that that gives further reassurance to Members that scrutiny, of the nature that they seek, of the Government’s work will be undertaken by the Treasury Committee.
Furthermore, the OBR has already published a detailed review of the approach taken in the analysis provided across Whitehall, comparing it with other academic publications since the referendum. We believe that extending the OBR’s remit, as proposed by amendment 14, would require the OBR to analyse alternatives to Government policy. That would draw the OBR into political debate and expose it to a significant risk to its credibility and that of the UK’s fiscal framework. It remains highly unlikely that the OBR could, in the time available, go beyond the points it has already made in its discussion paper in any assessment of the Government’s analysis, bearing in mind its capacity and modelling today.
As for the effects of the power mentioned in amendment 20, I hope that my previous assurances will reassure right hon. and hon. Members that the Government intend to use the power not to introduce tax policy changes, but merely to secure the continued effective operation of the tax system. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends who sought this amendment will see that we have listened and engaged and that the reassurances that I have provided today achieve the amendment’s purpose. I therefore urge them not to proceed with their amendments.
I turn to amendment 15, which calls for the Government to provide a list of powers in relevant tax legislation that the Treasury has acquired since June 2016, or that it expects to acquire, relating to any EU exit scenario. All such powers have been passed as primary legislation. They have been scrutinised by this House and were voted through accordingly. As with all legislation, that which relates to these powers is in the public domain, should anyone wish to examine it. I do not think that it is necessary to reprise this list. I hope that hon. Members will see that amendment 15 is therefore entirely unnecessary, and I encourage them not to proceed with it.
Kirsty Blackman
I rise to speak in favour of SNP amendments 7 to 10 and new clauses 10 and 11. I would also like to mention amendments 14, 15, 22, 20 and 2 and new clause 17, all of which we would be comfortable supporting, if any of them are pushed to the vote.
There has been a lengthy discussion across the Committee on trade deals. People are confusing free trade agreements and trade deals. It is perfectly possible to make arrangements that improve the flow of trade without signing an FTA; they are two very separate things. It is not understood widely enough that any trade agreement between countries involves compromise. Whatever is signed up to between, let’s say, the UK and the USA will involve the UK having to give some things away as well as gaining something.
The consultation on trade deals looked at trade deals with New Zealand and Australia, with the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-pacific partnership, and with the US. However, despite the fact that UK Government Members have talked about how important our trade is with countries such as South Korea and how fast it has grown, the Government have not consulted on that and they did not do so because we have those trade deals already, as a member of the EU. That is why our trade has grown so quickly with South Korea.
Thank you for your indulgence, Dame Rosie. I will move now to the actual subject of the debate. Our amendment 7 asks that clause 89 be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I appreciate that the Minister has put a list in the Library, and I will take a look at the list of tax changes he proposes to make under the clause, but I am on the Committee that is sifting the statutory instruments the Government are bringing forward, and some of those SIs that the Government think should be taken under the negative procedure should never have been so proposed. Some are fairly dramatic changes to the law—to powers or new institutions, for example—and yet are being put to the statutory instrument sifting Committee as negative instruments.
I hope that the Minister will forgive me, but I do not trust the Government to introduce only measures in the category that we believe should be subject to the negative procedure. I will look carefully at that list, but I will still press amendment 7, because, given my experience of Ministers, I do not yet have the level of comfort that I need.
Robert Jenrick
I hope that in due course the hon. Lady will have an opportunity to read the letter that is in the Library and see that these are truly minor technical amendments, changing, for example, a reference to the EU to a reference to the EU and the UK, and a reference to euros to a reference to pounds sterling. I hope that, in due course, she will be comfortable with those minor technical changes.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
Robert Jenrick ExcerptsMonday 12th November 2018
(5 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2019 View all Finance Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members across the House who have contributed to this wide-ranging debate. The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury managed the unusual feat of opening the debate without mentioning a single measure in the Finance Bill, although he did brandish a very thin pamphlet, which we were told contained all the answers to the Labour party’s spending commitments. A number of important issues have been raised across the House tonight, and I will do my best in the time available—and as swiftly as possible—to respond to as many as I can.
Two weeks ago, the Chancellor was able to present a Budget that followed five years of economic growth, with the deficit cut by four fifths, the lowest levels of unemployment, the highest levels of employment in my lifetime, real wages rising and real wages rising fastest among the lowest paid. It was a Budget in which, as a result of responsible management of the public finances—meeting the serious challenges we inherited in 2010 in a serious way—we were able to invest the highest levels in our economic infrastructure for more than 40 years, including £460 million more a week than the last Labour Government for our roads, railways and broadband. The Budget increased funding to the NHS by £20.5 billion a year in real terms; froze fuel, beer and spirits duty once again as a result of sustained lobbying and support from Members on the Government Benches, including my friends from Scotland; and—above all—provided a tax cut for 32 million people.
My hon. Friends the Members for Croydon South (Chris Philp) and for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) and many other Government Members welcomed our action to support the high street and to enable town centres to adapt and evolve to new circumstances and continue to be the cornerstones of thriving communities. That action includes a reduction in business rates for 30% of smaller retailers, investment in transformation and infrastructure through the £675 million future high streets fund, and planning reforms to make it easier, cheaper and quicker to create businesses and work places in town centres and to create homes—planning reforms that are now, it seems, opposed by the Labour party.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South made an interesting suggestion about the seed enterprise investment scheme. In the Budget, we reaffirmed our commitment to the world-class incentives we have as a country to encourage investment, promote wealth creation and make this country the best place in the world to be an entrepreneur, such as continuing entrepreneurs’ relief and continuing EIS and SEIS, as my hon. Friend suggested.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and many other Government Members welcomed our sustained commitment to reducing corporation tax again—now to 17%—and noted that our decision to reduce it from 28% had not, as was suggested, reduced receipts to the Treasury, but had in fact increased them by 55%. My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) made the case, as he regularly does, that we want to grow the economy and support the people out there who are creating small businesses. This Budget and this Finance Bill are for them.
Alan Brown
I thank the Minister for giving way. If reducing corporation tax brings in more money, why has the Red Book never shown that, and why is the Treasury not able to provide any modelling that shows an increase in revenues from that reduction?
Robert Jenrick
I think I have already explained that the facts speak for themselves. Receipts from the reduction in corporation tax have increased by over 50%. That measure was opposed by the SNP and the Labour party.
My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) represents many people who work in the automotive sector, which we want to support. He asked about vehicle excise duty. In this Bill, as he knows, we are legislating to increase support for low-emission taxis and have brought that measure forward by a year. We have also increased support for electric charge points, to help the further roll-out of electric vehicles, as other hon. Members across the House have suggested. As I discussed last week with the chief executive of Jaguar Land Rover, who supported this strongly, we intend to review the consequences of the new worldwide harmonised light vehicle test procedure on vehicle excise duty and report back in the spring.
The right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) spoke of the need to incentivise further business investment, particularly at this important moment in the Brexit negotiations. I am sure he will welcome the increase in the annual investment allowance from £200,000 to £1 million, which will encourage businesses across the country, including manufacturers, to invest in new plant, new machinery and digital technology and raise their productivity, as well as the new structures and buildings allowance, which started on Budget day.
The Budget laid out a whole range of measures—exactly the ways forward that the right hon. Gentleman suggested—to increase productivity, which is the only sustainable way to improve living standards in this country, including the largest ever investment in our strategic road network and investment in our skills base, including the introduction of T-levels, encouraging apprenticeships and the national retraining partnership.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I very much welcome the money in the Budget for repairing potholes. Does the Minister agree that it is vital that our great capital city gets its fair share of that funding?
Robert Jenrick
I certainly do. Some Opposition Members were snobby about potholes, but those of us in the real world know that potholes matter. They affect people’s working lives, and we want to fix that problem. In answer to my right hon. Friend, Barnet will shortly be receiving £690,0000 for potholes.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and many others welcomed the transferable tax history, which we announced in the Budget and which she advocated. She was strongly supported by our Scottish Conservative colleagues. The oil and gas industry is a national economic asset and one that we want to support. It supports 280,000 jobs across the Union, but particularly in north-east Scotland. In the Budget, the Chancellor reaffirmed our commitment to strong, competitive and predictable taxation, so that the industry—which is, as the hon. Lady said, still fragile—can continue to strengthen in the years ahead.
Many of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), welcomed the introduction of the increase in the personal allowance and the increase in the higher-rate threshold—a tax cut for 32 million people, more than 1.5 million more working people taken out of tax altogether and achieving an increase in the personal allowance by more than 90% since 2010, which is a promise made in our manifesto and a promise delivered in the Budget.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), as well as quoting Tiberius—I am yet to know whether Tiberius is quoted in No. 11; perhaps the Chancellor will invite my hon. Friend round for a cup of tea—was absolutely right to say that the Bill takes forward the measures in the last Budget to create a stamp duty relief for first-time buyers in other properties and extend it to those in shared ownership. That encourages and increases the dream of home ownership to a new generation.
As the Financial Secretary said at the beginning of the debate, the Bill also makes a number of changes to make our tax system fairer, and many Members across the House welcomed the new digital services tax. Some asked why we do not go further and faster, but let us remember that we will be the first major economy to create a tax of this nature. We are genuinely leading the international community and we hope to lead a multinational agreement, but the UK, under the leadership of the Chancellor, will lead the way. With those measures and others in the Bill, we will continue to close the tax gap, which is at its lowest ever and lower than in any year of the last Labour Government.
The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), at the beginning of the debate, and other hon. Members later, asked what action we are taking to support the environment and on climate change. One such measure, of course, is our proposed plastics packaging tax—again, leading the world by creating an innovative tax that encourages the producers of plastic packaging to take responsibility and change their packaging, and building on great Conservative environmental taxes of the past, such as the landfill tax created by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke).
My hon. Friends the Members for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) and for Moray (Douglas Ross), among others, said very clearly—this is an important dividing line in British politics—that we are excited about the future of this country, and want to support and invest in science and technology and in research and development to drive the economy forward. From the Labour party, we heard no ideas as to how to grow the economy. We heard about more spending and higher taxes, but nothing about how to create wealth and make our country more prosperous. We heard only ideas that we know have failed in the past.
Let us be clear: a vote against the Bill tonight would be a vote against enabling investment and new jobs in the north-east of Scotland and a vote against the transferable tax history, which the hon. Member for Aberdeen North says she has campaigned for and advocated over many years. It would be a vote against further investment in manufacturing to raise productivity, which Opposition Members have said should be a national priority, and a vote against the increase in the annual investment allowance. It would be a vote against extending the stamp duty land tax relief for first-time buyers to those who want to live in shared-ownership properties, something advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North. A year ago, the Opposition voted against our first policy in this area. Today, we know that more than 120,000 people across the country have benefited from that stamp duty relief. Surely the Labour party will not make the same mistake again.
Anyone who votes against the Finance Bill tonight will be voting against further actions to close the tax gap and to make it harder to evade and avoid taxation, and against making our tax system fairer. It would be a vote against a tax cut for 32 million people, and a vote against taking more than 1.5 million of our fellow citizens out of income tax altogether.
The Bill will make the UK more competitive, more innovative and more entrepreneurial. It will deliver lower taxes and put more money into the pockets of our British working public. It will make our economy and our country stronger, and I commend it to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Oral Answers to Questions
Robert Jenrick Excerpts(5 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
The Budget set out the next steps in our plan to raise productivity and to grow the economy. That included increasing the national productivity investment fund to more than £37 billion to fund the largest sustained investment in our national infrastructure since the 1970s.
Lee Rowley
With that very increase in infrastructure funding to £37 billion, what opportunities are there in places such as North East Derbyshire to invest in regeneration and communities?
Robert Jenrick
The plans set out in the Budget were designed exactly for parts of the country such as my hon. Friend’s constituency. The £28.8 billion national roads fund will provide the largest ever investment in our strategic roads, and more money for potholes and pinch points. The future high streets fund will enable small towns across the country, including in the midlands, to be transformed and become thriving communities once more.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
How does the announcement in the Budget that non-NHS capital funding will actually fall in the coming years help the country’s productivity?
Robert Jenrick
The Budget announced the largest increase in capital spend in our economic infrastructure since the 1970s. Under this Government, investment in our economic infrastructure will be £460 million a week higher than under the last Labour Government.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Chancellor has announced that he will be improving productivity by stopping inefficient public sector contracting—basically, abolishing the use of the private finance initiative and private finance 2. Can more be done to reduce the £240 billion bill to our country left by the Labour party?
Robert Jenrick
Yes. We are ending the scandal of PFI that was created by the last Labour Government. Eighty-six per cent. of PFI contracts were signed by the last Labour Government—91% by value. In addition to retiring PFI we are creating a crack team, beginning in the Department of Health and Social Care, to look back at some of those old contracts and to clean out the stable left by the last Labour Government.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
This Government and their coalition predecessors have overseen the longest slump in wages in living memory. What effect has that had on productivity?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of this, but real wages are rising. The Government believe that the best way to support working people across the country is to get them into work. Employment is now at its highest level in my lifetime, with 3 million more jobs created and 1 million fewer people on the dole.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
Plymouth and the West of England Combined Authority will benefit from the £2.5 billion transforming cities fund extended in the Budget. Cornwall will receive £79 million towards the A30 St Austell link road, which my hon. Friend campaigned for.
Steve Double
I thank the Minister for that answer, but Cornwall relies on its only mainline rail link through south Devon, and it is well documented that it is very vulnerable to adverse weather. The Budget Red Book contained a reference to improving that rail link, but some in the south-west have doubted the Government’s commitment to it. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are committed to improving that railway, and that we now need Network Rail to get on with it?
Robert Jenrick
Protecting the line at Dawlish is a national priority. South-west Conservative MPs, including my hon. Friend, pressed that upon the Chancellor and me, and we restated our commitment in the Budget to finding a permanent solution that delivers super-resilience at Dawlish.
John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
I have regular conversations with my counterparts in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, including on the One Yorkshire proposals. We have said that we will respond to any proposals that we receive in good faith, assuming that they are able to provide for economic growth in a clearly defined economic geography.
John Grogan
Does the Minister agree that the detailed economic case for One Yorkshire devolution, presented to the Treasury and to other Ministries by no fewer than 18 Yorkshire councils, many of them Conservative, is worthy of detailed discussion between the Government and local authorities, as specified in the legislation?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed this matter. I have met stakeholders from the region on a number of occasions, including Councillor Judith Blake from Leeds. We have said that to progress this matter we want to see the Sheffield city region become fully functioning and the Mayor, who is now elected, able to conduct his duties. We think that is a reasonable way forward, so that local people in that area are not let down.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
The hon. Gentleman obviously missed the Chancellor’s speech at the Conservative party conference, in which he announced the creation of a special area of economic activity at Toton, just south of Nottingham, which we expect to become one of the UK’s leading areas of economic growth. We also announced in the Budget an increase in the transforming cities fund, which will directly benefit Nottingham.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Motorists want to see the earliest possible end to the traffic misery on the A417 caused by the air balloon pinch point. Does my hon. Friend recognise that the Budget, through its extra firepower for roads, provides the best possible platform for such a vital scheme?
Robert Jenrick
I have met my hon. Friend and his Gloucestershire colleagues to discuss this matter. It was with strategic roads and roundabouts, such as the air balloon roundabout, in mind that we made the largest ever investment in our strategic road network. Decisions on specific roads will be made next year.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I welcome HMRC’s rather belated decision to return tax wrongly paid by the Roadchef employee benefit trust. It is clearly now necessary to honour previously made commitments in respect of tax implications for beneficiaries. Did HMRC use its discretion to make that payout, and, if so, on what basis?
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
This morning, the European Automobile Manufacturers Association released research demonstrating that all 270 new-generation diesel vehicles tested to date are below the emissions threshold on the road. In the light of this, will the Treasury team meet me and other colleagues to discuss how we can construct a road tax system that promotes clean diesel over old diesel and protects 9,000 jobs in my constituency?
Robert Jenrick
I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend, who I know is a champion for Jaguar Land Rover. I hope it will reassure him to know that I will discuss these issues with the chief executive of that company later today.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
If we took every single person who has suffered a major traumatic brain injury—for instance, from a car crash—from needing four people in order to be able to wash, clothe and look after themselves to needing just one, and thereby leading a more independent life, we could save the taxpayers £5 billion a year. May I meet with the Chancellor to explain all this?