Autumn Statement Resolutions

Robert Syms Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Having been in this House for a while, I remember Gordon Brown saying that he would abolish boom and bust, but economics is always about cycles. I have been through a number of OBR assessments: they are usually either optimistic, saying that years 2, 3 and 4 look great, or pessimistic, saying that years 2, 3 and 4 look bad. The truth of the matter is that economies go down and then come back up. They recover.

I think Harold Macmillan was once asked by a young person what the biggest problem in politics was. He said, “Events, dear boy.” When the 2019 manifesto was written, we did not know about covid, its worldwide impact or the extraordinary measures that the Government would have to take. I took a slightly different view of the issue from Government Front Benchers, but clearly a lot of money was spent, with the best of intentions, to try to reduce the number of people affected. That was bound to have an effect on our country. When I talk to my constituents, they all understand that if we spend a lot of money because of an emergency, we will ultimately end up with a bill. With several million people sitting at home and the Bank of England printing money at 20% a year, we should not be surprised if inflation picks up. The good news is that broad money is now growing at 7%, so inflation will come down, living standards will rise and the economy will recover.

After that extraordinary economic event, we have had the Russians invading Ukraine and a massive spike in energy prices. Again, the Government, doing what they can for people, have put in a major programme of assistance. We can argue about whether it should be more or less generous, but the fact is that those were two extraordinary events in a very short space of time, and they are bound to have an impact on the economics of the Government. That means that the Government have had to take some tough decisions. Ultimately, we can either borrow money, tax it or print it. Printing it leads to hell, as we see, and we can only borrow so much if we pay interest. I therefore think the Government have taken the responsible route in a difficult year to stabilise the economy.

But things will get better. The sun will come up; living standards will recover. I am optimistic about the future of our country, because our country always rises to a challenge. That does mean that, as Conservatives, we have to get back to a tax-cutting agenda when it is economically prudent to do so, and it means that we might have to look at public spending if it is too high, but at least now we have a plan. The markets can look ahead for four or five years and have an approximate idea of where the Government are coming from.

The world in which the Bank could print money and buy Government bonds, and the Treasury would underwrite losses on those Government bonds—the period of easy money that we had in Britain, the United States and the euro area—has come to an end. That means that Governments will find it more difficult to sell gilts over the next five to 10 years than they used to. That is why we need prudent and sensible economic management. The Government have taken a brave decision with the statement that they brought forward—notwithstanding the fact that we are not exactly in the lead in the opinion polls at the moment. I think it is the right thing to do for our nation, because ultimately we are here to do what is right for our country.

Within the difficulties of the statement, we have safeguarded the capital budget—I note colleagues criticising HS2, but that is a major capital project that may have a very positive impact on the midlands and the north, particularly in terms of redevelopment. We have also put more into education. We need to do a lot more in that sector, because some of the far eastern countries that are looking towards the future, such as Korea, do far better at 16, 17 and 18 than we seem to. We have to invest in the human capital that we have in our country.

I am hopeful the statement will stabilise the economic situation, that the plan will be for the economy to recover and that, as the economic situation eases, we can go back to some of the things we wanted to do in the summer: reducing the burden of taxation and increasing incentives. We all want to help strivers, but even the strivers in my constituency realise that things have to be paid for and that we have to be responsible in the way we do things, otherwise we get into trouble. I support the statement and what the Chancellor has done. He has been very measured in what he has proposed, but there will have to be a phase 2, phase 3 and phase 4, which will involve increasing productivity and incentives. Once we get over the immediate problems, I look forward to the Government doing a lot more to increase growth in our economy.

Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits

Robert Syms Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

As the motion relates to a Treasury matter, may I pay tribute to the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak)? He had to get the country through a difficult period in the pandemic. He produced a number of interesting schemes, such as the furlough and the self-employment income support scheme, where the software worked and where people were helped. I think he was very creative in the way he handled a difficult situation. I know that it is not always easy for senior politicians to take decisions such as the one that he has taken today. I wish him well, along with the former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid). We will see how events unfold.

Let me start by taking a traditional Conservative position and saying that I do not like windfall taxes. The North sea is a tremendous British success story. We have got oil out of deep seas using technology, investment and British initiative over decades and we have benefited the nation in doing so. We are a nation that has oil and gas all the way around its coast, as Professor Peter Odell used to say in the 1970s. It is just a question of whether it is viable to get it out, and whether the tax and investment regime is good enough.

The North sea is quite mature now. Although the rise in prices is unwelcome for motorists, it certainly gives the opportunity to extend the life of some fields and makes other oil fields with more marginal prospects more viable. If we are looking for a resilient future for our country, getting the best out of our natural resources in the transition to net zero, I think we ought to have a stable tax network, not act like a Venezuelan junta by jumping in and trying to take money away from oil companies. And what are oil companies? They are normally vehicles for pension funds for lots of elderly people living up and down the country who rely on that income to pay their cost of living bills. There is no such thing as a painless tax rise. There is no magic money tree if we go and punch the oil and gas companies in the mouth. I think this is a very short-sighted policy. It may raise money, but the consequences are long term, and it may have an impact on investment.

Apart from the creation of an oil industry, there are thousands of jobs in oil services in and around Aberdeen, in many other parts of the United Kingdom and, now, worldwide. I think we ought to be proud of what this country has achieved, and we ought to be doing what we can to support those well-paid and important jobs as we go towards net zero.

I am not going to divide the House today. I do not think I would get a seconder, as I am probably the only person who is against the windfall tax at the moment, but we will see how this transpires. I think that a stable tax system in which people in the oil and gas industry can look decades ahead—because investment decisions sometimes take decades—is a much better way of dealing with the situation.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s arguments, although I do not agree with them, but has he an alternative proposal for helping people to bring down their energy bills? I am sure that many of his constituents are deeply worried about how they will make ends meet, particularly with the next increase in bills coming this autumn. How does he suggest we help them?

[Sir Robert Syms]

I am not sure that the £5 billion raised from the oil companies will find its way into the pockets of people who are worried about their energy bills. As far as I know, it is going into the Treasury.

I return to my original simple point. The Government have already undertaken a number of measures to help with bills; the problem is the lag between the decision making and the assistance that they are giving. So there is always more pressure to do more. I am hopeful that, as we proceed, people will suddenly see some of the bail-out help with bills that the Government have already factored in. But I think that a stable tax system is a better way of proceeding than adding a higher levy on top of corporation tax rates, which are already higher than the rates for most other companies. Let us not forget that many of these oil companies were losing money 18 months ago when we were in lockdown.

I am unhappy with this policy. I will find it interesting to see how the Government bring the positives forward. I am pleased that they have listened to representations—and the former Chancellor was talking to the oil industry—but I think that in the long term this is bound to have a negative effect on investment in the sector, and that what we should be doing is cherishing and encouraging the sector so that we import less from other countries and give ourselves more resilience and security of supply.

That is really all that I wanted to say. I wanted to make my reactionary right-wing comments about windfall taxes, and I did not want the motion to go through without my putting them on the record.

Budget Resolutions

Robert Syms Excerpts

Wednesday 27th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett), I was pleased with the Chancellor’s optimistic Budget for our country today. We faced a major difficulty with the pandemic and have had to intervene in the economy more than any Government since the second world war, introducing schemes that were massive in their scale to protect people, jobs and businesses. The amazing thing is that that was delivered seamlessly and successfully. We used our fiscal position, whereby we had relatively low national debt, to get through this crisis. The fact that the OBR has reduced its estimate of scarring of the economy, and that the Bank of England has reduced it to only 1%—I suspect it may be reduced further—shows that the economy has got through a major crisis and emerged the other side in much better shape than one had any reason to suspect.

We have 1 million vacancies and an economy estimated by the OBR to grow by more than 6% this year, and it could be higher. We therefore have an economy that is growing and recovering extremely fast. I think that is a good thing. The fact that we have come through this with a growing economy is great. We also look like we will have rapid growth next year and growth in future years. The Government are now in quite a good position. They have a rising growth rate and rising tax income.

Two things concern me. First, I do not like raising taxes. I will only raise taxes if I feel that money is being spent well. We have increased spending in this Budget, and it is beholden on the Government to justify that it is being well spent in the NHS and through other Departments. I have to say that some of the examples—things such as Test and Trace—do not exactly fill one with enthusiasm that some of this money is being well spent. I call on the Government to look at that organisation and perhaps to start to reduce its size and the amount of money it is spending. Some £20 billion-odd a year is a lot of money—twice what we got from putting up national insurance on many people who are low paid. There are still many areas where the Government could save money.

I was pleased by the optimistic tone of what the Chancellor said today. What he has done with many taxes and charges, generally speaking, is just to let things flow on and not to put up inflation by raising things such as fuel duty and alcohol duty. The changes to business rates are welcome and will be helpful. In particular, I think the change of the taper rate in universal credit, so that people can earn more if they work more, is vital. It has always struck me that there is a barrier there. Many people working 16 hours a week, if they are asked to do overtime, say, “No, it’s not worth my while.” It must be right that those who are partly supported by the state and work for employers have flexible enough employment that they can take up more work and earn more when asked. That and many other measures should add flexibility to the British economy.

I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) said about science. If any of us needed a lesson about the importance of science, the pandemic brought that home. We are a science superpower, but sometimes the proceeds of science are not turned into jobs, factories and other things.

At the beginning of the pandemic, we had world-class people to develop vaccines, but only two vaccine manufacturers for animals rather than people. Now we have factories and the capacity. Even the person who drives the van with vaccines in it from the factory to the delivery point is a job created in the United Kingdom. With any kind of science policy, we have to ensure not only that we have world-class science, but that that is turned into jobs in this country, which has always been our weak point.

One of big lessons of the past 12 months is that we have been living in a just-in-time world, so many businesses are finding higher freight rates and disruption due to the pandemic very difficult. We must have a more resilient economy, which may mean that the Government have to look at storemen and storing strategic materials. I was pleased to read in the newspapers that we are in discussions about increasing our gas capacity and bringing back some of the British Gas capacity. As an economy, the biggest challenge ahead is ensuring that we have the raw materials and the resources to get ahead. Relying on other people to build things is not as sustainable and sensible as it used to be.

Over the past 20 years, we have imported a lot from nice China, but we now find that it is more aggressive, so we have to look at where we source things from. There is nothing better than sourcing something at or near to home, which would make a big difference. Clearly, freight rates will make a big difference to the world economy. The economics change substantially if we can import a container of cheap products from the far east for £1,500 compared with £8,000 a container. That is why some British companies are busy filling a new market.

The essential lessons for the Government are to get the national debt and the deficit falling, which the Budget does; invest in the things that are worth investing in, such as decent infrastructure and science, where we can win; structure our economy so that we produce more at home; and plan for the fact that the free-flowing world-trading economy that we have known over the past 20 years may not be there in future. We have to be more resilient and more careful in how we proceed.

Health and Social Care Levy

Robert Syms Excerpts

1st reading
Wednesday 8th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

Political parties in this country set out with manifestos at general elections with a general intent to try to implement them. There is usually a number of rules. If a party thinks it will win, it has the shortest manifesto possible, and if a party is in opposition, it will usually have an endless manifesto with lots of promises to try to attract people. The truth of the matter is that what comes along is events, and a pragmatic, sensible Government have to respond to events.

We have had one big event, the pandemic. Nobody said, “You didn’t have the furlough in the manifesto”, because how could we have foreseen that? The jobs of 7 million, 8 million, 9 million people were protected to get through the pandemic. Nobody said, “You cannot give grants”, or, “You cannot spend £400 billion.” We live in a funny country where the Prime Minister can spend £400 billion getting us through a pandemic, but God forbid he try to put wallpaper up in his flat in Downing Street, which of course the Cabinet Office would not pay for.

The reality is that the Government have been pragmatic and sensible, and the consequence of the pandemic is that we have a higher debt level, and that changes the parameters of what the party that is governing can do. We want to implement our manifesto promises dealing with care. We need to get the backlog of the NHS down. Many people in my constituency have been quiet, waiting for their operation and their opportunity to get back to normal, and we need to give them support. That is what we are trying to do.

The simple truth is that we are in a different world from the one we had in 2019. This Government are treating the world as it is, and that means tough decisions and unpopular decisions. I would not be surprised if we fell behind in the opinion polls, but the reality is that we are doing what the British people expect us to do, which is to govern and deal with the problems we face. I support this Government, not because I agree with everything that they do, but because I am proud of the fact that they take tough decisions. That is what Governments are meant to do. They are meant to take challenges head on.

We are dealing with the NHS backlog. Who can tell how quickly we will get it shifted? Of course we need more staff, but we are seeing in figures out recently that the backlog is already starting to fall. Let us hope it is cleared quickly. We are starting to deal with some of the care issues. Is this proposal a silver bullet for dealing with them all? No, it is not. Is it enough money? I wonder, because there is a list of Government priorities that may mean some funds may be diverted before they get to care. The Government are trying their best to deal with people’s concerns.

We all have constituents whose parents have worked hard all their life to buy a home; we see the unlucky ones when mum or dad has Alzheimer’s and goes into a home and they see the proceeds of a life’s work disappear. If that person is in a home next to someone fully funded by a local authority, it is quite right and proper that we should pay at least some regard to their hard work and recognise the things they did not have—perhaps holidays or horseracing or gambling—because they wanted to buy a home.

The Government are roughly on the right track. I hope that we will get back to a more tax-cutting agenda as the years roll by. I am very hopeful for the deficit this year because we are growing quite rapidly, we seem to be getting control of spending and we have had to take some tough decisions with tax. I am confident that when we come to face the British people, I will hold my head up high because we are tackling the issues that my constituents care about.

Spending Review 2020 and OBR Forecast

Robert Syms Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

I believe we have, with £1.3 billion of extra funding next year for the Welsh Government to spend as they see fit on their devolved competencies, of which flooding is one. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can raise that with the Welsh Government. We in England are doubling investment in flood defences over the next few years to over £5 billion, protecting over 300,000 homes, and the £1.3 billion of Barnett funding for Wales will enable that funding to go to where it is needed.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I thank the Chancellor for his statement. Over the last 10 years, we have spent over £100 billion on overseas aid, with a lot of it borrowed. Most of my constituents will understand the difficult decision that the Government have had to make. At 0.5%, our aid spending will be higher than that of most of our neighbours, and probably higher than the Major Government and many other Governments in the past. He has set out the recovery in GDP and growth over the next three or four years, and no doubt the budget will go up again.

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comment. He is right—I think the average aid spending of the last Labour Government was 0.36%, so it will be sufficiently ahead of that. As I said, we intend to return to this over time when the fiscal situation allows. He will appreciate better than others the unbelievable uncertainty at the moment, but that is our intention.

Draft Financial Services (Miscellaneous) (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No. 3) Regulations 2019

Robert Syms Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 General Committees

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I have sat on many of these Committees. It is not unusual to have civil servants come forward because minor mistakes have been made, and the normal procedure in this type of Committee is to put them right, rather than to reject and vote against the instrument. The Treasury civil servants have done a really good job in difficult circumstances to onshore these regulations. They have used the opportunity of the extension, which I was against, to go back through the regulations to see whether they could be improved further. What we have today is the civil service acting in a sensible manner to see whether it can get things as right as possible.

It is highly irresponsible to vote against the instrument today. We may well end up with no deal at the end of October. I was under the impression that the financial services industry in Edinburgh is quite important to the Scottish economy, so I am surprised that the hon. Member for Glasgow Central is happy to vote against, leaving defective regulations in place. I support what the Government are doing. I think it is perfectly sensible, and I commend the Minister’s statement.

Finance (No. 3) Bill (Ninth sitting)

Robert Syms Excerpts

Committee Debate: 9th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Anneliese Dodds]

I will speak briefly to the clause. The hon. Lady has set out the SNP’s reasons for tabling amendments 137 and 138. The official Opposition agree with those reasons, and it seems highly sensible to require regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure. We have argued for that consistently in relation to our future relationship with the EU and the no deal process. We are concerned about the wholesale power grab that unfortunately appears to be continuing apace. We would support SNP Members if they decided to press their amendments to a vote.

We have tabled two amendments, and I am pleased to hear that the SNP support them. Under the Prime Minister’s proposed withdrawal agreement, the UK would initially, at least, continue to align itself with EU regulations, but little information has been provided alongside the clause to indicate how the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal would impact on Council directive 2017/1852, particularly if there was divergence later on. Similarly, the Treasury’s policy note offers no guidance about whether the EU’s resolution mechanism would be upheld for all future double taxation disputes in the event of a no deal Brexit.

That is of a piece with the general lack of information about the Government’s anticipated future relationship on tax matters with the EU. I have consistently asked whether we would seek to be a member of the code of conduct group, for example, and I have had no indication of the Government’s views on that matter. With that in mind, the Opposition have tabled amendment 149, which would require the Chancellor to publish a review of the impact of the powers under clause 82 in the event that the UK leaves the EU under a no deal Brexit or under the current withdrawal agreement—or whatever it becomes. It is unclear whether it will be changed or whether assurances will simply be produced in relation to it. Whatever happens, we may or may not be voting on it at some point, hopefully in the near future. Amendment 149 would require the Treasury to offer a clear indication of how the EU’s dispute resolution mechanism for double tax disputes would be maintained, and the likelihood of the different possibilities.

Amendment 150 would require the Chancellor to undertake a review of the revenue effects of the measure. The Treasury policy note states that the measure will raise no revenue and will have no economic impact on taxpayers. That is rather hard to believe, given that even the most benign change to the tax system can have far-reaching and unseen consequences. They may be unpredictable, but surely it would be better to say that than to say that the change will have no impact. The Chancellor would therefore be required to outline in the review the possibility of any unforeseen economic impacts, and the revenues that are likely to be raised from this measure after the Treasury makes regulations to use the powers.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

Had we had a meaningful vote today—we are not going to have one—I would have voted with the hon. Members for Oxford East and for Aberdeen North. However, I find it a little strange that those who intend to vote against the agreement should criticise the Government for a no deal Brexit, because ultimately that is not the Government’s position.

There are about 800 statutory instruments for leaving the European Union. About 600 of them are negative, and a hundred and something are affirmative. It is perfectly possible for the Opposition to pick any number of negatives to pray against. If the Opposition have a problem with something, they can pray against it when it appears on the Order Paper and get a debate. There is a remedy for hon. Members’ concerns, but the reality is that so many of these things are modest and technical, and there are more important matters of principle for us to discuss. I do not think we want to spend a lot of time in this Committee or others debating minor, technical issues.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am on the European Statutory Instruments Committee, as are other Committee members. Sifting the proposed negative statutory instruments and changing some of them into proposed affirmatives has been a really interesting and useful process, which has shown us that the Government do not always make the right decision. Something like that for the long term would probably allay some of our concerns.

[Sir Robert Syms]

I come back to my basic point that there are certain matters of principle that are good for parliamentary debate, and there are minor, technical matters, such as those dealing with the Inland Revenue. I am not sure that debating the latter would bring much to the sum of human happiness. I also make the point that, although the Conservative party does not enjoy a majority in the House of Commons, the Scottish National party does not enjoy a majority in the Scottish Parliament, so we are all sort of in the same boat.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about technical matters and grander principles. However, given that the Government have not allowed us to amend the law in any significant way, the Committee is left at this point poring over the detail—the grander principles are being brushed aside by the Government. We are unable to scrutinise the Bill at the grander level or at the specific level.

[Sir Robert Syms]

The hon. Member makes his own point. We have discussed Budgets and Finance Bill Committees before. The Bill has been on the Floor of the House and will go back there. There will be endless debates, and I am perfectly sure that he and his formidable Front-Bench team will be able to make their points when the Bill goes back to the House. Ultimately, the Government have taken a perfectly pragmatic view, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Mel Stride]

An interesting observation: as soon as “EU” appears in a clause, we suddenly have more interest from the Committee than for other measures. Ms Dorries, I will endeavour not to stray into too much detail around the pros and cons of the current deal and the White Paper and all that kind of stuff, and will stick to the clause.

The clause enables the Government to make changes to bring into force the regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the EU directive on tax dispute resolution mechanisms within the European Union. Double taxation arises when the same profits are taxed twice by two different tax authorities. It can create serious obstacles for businesses operating across borders by creating excessive tax burdens, leading to inefficiencies and an economic disincentive to trade. An effective tax dispute resolution system can help to alleviate double taxation.

The UK is a signatory to the convention on the elimination of double taxation in connection with the adjustment of profits of associated enterprises within member states of the European Union, known as the arbitration convention. The UK has also entered into bilateral tax treaties with every EU member state for the purpose of eliminating double taxation. Following a review, it was concluded that the mechanisms currently provided for in bilateral tax treaties and the arbitration convention might not achieve the effective resolution of double taxation disputes between member states in all cases in a timely manner. Consequently, the directive was adopted to build on existing systems. The UK supported the aims of the directive and agreed the adopted text in 2017.

The powers contained within the clause are necessary to enable the Government to introduce secondary legislation to implement the directive. Some proposed amendments would apply the draft affirmative procedure to all regulations made under the clause. As it stands, the Bill ensures that the scrutiny procedures applying to the exercise of each power are appropriate and proportionate. The primary purpose of these powers is to give effect to an EU directive that has already been published. The exercise of the powers will therefore be a largely technical exercise—a point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms), who also raised the important point that Committee members who wish to further debate a negative SI can of course can pray against it—to transpose the agreed text into UK law. It would not be appropriate to apply the affirmative procedure to all the regulations.

An amendment has also been tabled that asks for a review of the effect on the exercise of the power contained in the clause of the UK leaving the EU with or without a negotiated withdrawal agreement within two months of the Finance Act 2019 being passed. The Government’s intention is for a negotiated withdrawal agreement to apply to the UK, and therefore an implementation period, so that we can use the powers in the clause to implement the EU directive. As a responsible Government, we are also planning for the unlikely event of leaving the EU without a deal. Given the reciprocal nature of double tax dispute resolution, it is difficult to see how legislation implementing the directive can work in a no-deal scenario, but we do not think it would be beneficial to commit to producing a report so close to EU exit, and before the transposition deadline of the directive in June 2019.

A further amendment asks for a statement by the Chancellor on the revenue effects of the exercise of the power under the clause. The Government intend to publish a tax information and impact note for the draft regulations. That will include an assessment of the expected revenue effects of the regulations. I am pleased to say that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Poole thoroughly approves of the tax information and impact notes regime which, as he knows, is rigorous and helpful. As a result there will be no need for the Chancellor to make an additional statement to the House.

Finance (No. 3) Bill (Eighth sitting)

Robert Syms Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mel Stride]

Maybe. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I will turn briefly to points raised by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[The Chair]

Robespierre. Sorry; Robert Syms.

[Sir Robert Syms]

There is a sort of revolution going on in Paris as a result of high fuel duties, which of course the Opposition want.

[Mel Stride]

As my hon. Friend pointed out in his remarks on earlier clauses, we have frozen fuel duty for nine successive years—but perhaps we had better get back to the matter in hand, revolutions and fuel not featuring particularly in clause 65.

First, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde feels that this tax is seen as one of the least fair. It is certainly true that it is one of the least popular taxes; I would accept that. However, it only typically applies to about 4% or 5% of estates, although the public generally assume that it applies much more widely. That, of course, is a consequence of the policies we brought in to extend the thresholds, which we have been discussing. As the hon. Gentleman suggests, it brings in about £5 billion a year and, in terms of its fairness across the range of different wealth levels, I can inform him that 70% of inheritance tax is raised from those with estates valued at over £2 million, so the vast bulk of it comes from those who are significantly wealthy.

The hon. Gentleman quite rightly raises the general question of keeping taxes under review and looking at inheritance tax. He gave various examples of the work of others in that respect and made various suggestions. He will be aware that the Office of Tax Simplification is reviewing inheritance tax, and has already reported on the administration and guidance relating to it, with which there are various issues. In the spring of next year, it will also report on the policy area itself, and we will look with great interest at the report when it comes out. [Interruption.] May I correct something I have just said? Perhaps I am bad at reading handwriting here. The 70% relates to those with an estate of over £1 million, rather than £2 million.

The hon. Gentleman raises perfectly legitimate questions that we should be asking about the reliefs associated with agricultural land and woodlands, and the different approaches that those who can afford advisers and so on may seek to take to lower their inheritance tax. All those things will make for interesting debate and consideration when the OTS reports back in spring.

The Government are introducing these changes to clarify the working of the downsizing rules, and to provide certainty about when a person is treated as inheriting property. The residence nil-rate band reduces the burden of inheritance tax for families by making it easier to pass on the family home to children or grandchildren, and the band is an additional threshold available when a residence is being passed to a direct descendant. As the hon. Gentleman set out, the value in 2018-19 is £125,000. That will rise to £175,000 by 2020-21. Any unused threshold can be transferred to a surviving spouse or civil partner. The unused threshold is also available when a person has downsized to a less valuable property and passes on the proceeds from selling their home, instead of the property itself, to their children or grandchildren.

The Government announced those reforms in 2015 to ensure there would be an inheritance tax threshold of up to £1 million for married couples and civil partners by the end of this Parliament. That was a manifesto commitment, which I am pleased we have delivered, but it is right that we make changes to the legislation where necessary to ensure that the policy works as intended.

The changes made by clause 65 will correct two areas of the residence nil-rate band. First, the downsizing provisions were introduced to ensure that people would not lose access to this additional nil-rate band by, for example, moving house to meet their long-term care needs. However, the wording in the current legislation means that these provisions could apply in an upsizing scenario. That was never the intention and the changes will correct it.

Secondly, we believe that the additional threshold should be available only when the family home passes directly from an individual to their direct descendant on death. The changes will correct an anomaly in the legislation whereby the threshold could be available for a family home passed into a trust, where the direct descendants do not inherit the property. While the changes are important for revenue protection, we expect them to affect very few estates.

There has been one amendment proposed to this clause, which proposes reviewing and laying a report on the revenue effects of the changes. Amendment 122, however, is not necessary. The clause corrects the working of the residence nil-rate band and has no impact on wider inheritance tax policy. Consequently, there will be no revenue effects as a result of the clause. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn and commend the clause to the Committee.

Finance (No. 3) Bill (Seventh sitting)

Robert Syms Excerpts

Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 6th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

The most troubling thing about all the measures of cost and harm—from the environment, to road safety and congestion, to the revenue impact on the Exchequer—is that the sector is showing little or no improvement across them. That is a clear illustration that the current framework of incentives, including the HGV road user levy, is not working. While we welcome these much-needed changes, we urge the Government to look at the bigger picture and assess the wider impacts of the HGV road user levy, as our amendments propose.

[Sir Robert Syms]

Apart from paying the levy, the road haulage industry pays considerable sums of tax on fuel; it therefore pays quite a lot into the Exchequer for the provision of roads. I would make another important point: almost every good that we have in this country travels at some point on a road haulage vehicle. Almost all of what someone buys in a supermarket for Sunday lunch travels in such a vehicle. There is no such thing as a painless tax. If we raise the cost of vehicles delivering goods in this country, the costs are raised for supermarkets and businesses and that is passed on in the form of higher prices and inflation. There is a balance to be struck.

The other point is that the British economy has been growing since 2009-10. As it grows, there are more vehicles on the road, and that is a difficulty. The real way to deal with climate change is probably to crash the economy, so that unemployment shoots up and vehicles come off the roads. It is a problem that, if we have the economy growing, there are more vehicles on the road. On the whole, the solution is technological, both in the development of the levy—the hon. Member for Norwich South made one or two suggestions for that—and also in the engines and the information that people get this days. There has been a big improvement. The biggest incentive that there ought to be for the industry is to replace vehicles more regularly because, in the end, that will probably have more impact on climate change.

I do not think that the solution to this problem is to increase costs. There are technological solutions that I am sure will come to help with all of our concerns about climate change.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 (Fifth sitting)

Robert Syms Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

In the event of independence, as was laid out in our White Paper, “Scotland’s Future”, the Scottish and UK Governments will have a negotiation about what will happen to decommissioning tax reliefs. We will do what we can to maximise economic harmony in the North sea and create jobs for the long term. It is incredibly important that those jobs are kept in the UK. The jobs could simply relocate if the Government do not take action. They could do more to support the supply chain, which has been squeezed by the cuts that the bigger operators have had to make because of the reduction in the oil price. The Government could do more to ensure that the supply chain companies are provided with the support that they need. The Oil & Gas Technology Centre is doing a very good job in that regard.

Access to finance is incredibly important so that companies can begin to support and monetise the technology that they have created. They have incredible reserves of intellectual property, some of which have not had the chance to be developed. I would rather not see the IP sold on to somebody else. I would rather the Government supported such development.

All the oilfields will need to be decommissioned eventually, but we want the jobs to be kept for the longer term. We are making a case for the maximum economic recovery to be made from the fields. It is important to note that once a field is decommissioned, there are no longer any jobs associated with that field. If we can prolong the life of that asset, we prolong a situation whereby jobs and therefore money for the Exchequer are secured. That is incredibly important for the north-east of Scotland. I will not support the Labour party’s amendments; I will choose to abstain. However, I will support the Government’s clause in relation to TTH. I thank them for taking action, although I would rather they had taken it sooner.

[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.