Ways and Means

Ruth George Excerpts

Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Wednesday 6th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Wes Streeting]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. This idea of trickle-down economics must surely be discredited now: it does not work. People are rather ill aware of the extent to which the benefits of economic growth have been unevenly distributed and disproportionately enjoyed by those at the very top. I do not have a great deal of time for special pleading by wealthy individuals and corporations about being asked to pay their fair share of tax, because not everyone is feeling the pinch, and it is entirely reasonable to look at what we can do to tighten loopholes in terms of tax avoidance.

That brings me to the specifics of Government policy. We have had some remarkable rhetoric from those on the Treasury Bench, even over the two years I have been a Member of Parliament. The former Prime Minister, David Cameron, lauded his global leadership on tax avoidance, but the rhetoric is rather divorced from the reality. Even with the measures set out today, there are still means available to non-doms that enable them to enjoy tax exemptions and concessions for many years that are not available to the average UK citizen. Let me give one example: non-doms are able to keep their assets out of the scope of tax if they are held in an overseas trust that was created before they were deemed as domicile. That strikes me as rather unfair and as fairly easy to solve. That is just one example, but there are lots on which Government could clamp down further. The political rhetoric is there, but I do not think the political will is being delivered by policy.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend contrast that clamp-down on non-doms and the tax reduction policies with the clamp-down on people with disabilities? Work capability assessments of their employment and support allowance and personal independence payments are reducing their benefits from day one.

[Wes Streeting]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. She will already have seen in her casework as a new Member the impact of changes to Government welfare policy on some of the most disadvantaged people in our society.

If politics in this country and across the western world tells us anything at the moment, it is that large numbers of people feel completely left behind by the economic order and are expressing their frustration through the ballot box in a variety of ways, whether that be by voting to leave the European Union because they see it as central to a global economic order that has left them behind, or by electing Donald Trump because of his promises to the central rust belt of America, which I think he will struggle to deliver. I will talk in my concluding remarks about what the current economic order means for politics and why Government really do need to listen to the voice of the people.

It is interesting to note the enormous complacency among Government Members. Sure, they occupy the Treasury Bench and Downing Street, and Government Departments are staffed by Conservative Ministers enacting, by and large, Government policies, with the very expensive assistance of the Democratic Unionist party. However, the Conservatives lost their majority at the election, and the tragedy for Conservative colleagues who lost their seats is that the Government have not actually listened to the message of the people.

Of course, our side has some humility about the fact that we did not win the election either. Lots of new hon. Members who have been elected to this House rightly celebrate their achievements and those of their party activists, but we know that we have further to go to earn the trust of the British people. Looking at the Government’s policies, we know that we have a responsibility to earn that trust to deal with the economic malaise and entrenched economic inequality that is affecting our citizens and those in many other economies. I welcome the Government’s rhetoric on tax avoidance and taking on non-doms, but I just do not see it reflected substantially enough in Government policy. I strongly support the criticism set out by the shadow Chief Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle.

There is a sad irony in the point that a number of right hon. and hon. Members have made about the provisions for retrospective changes to tax arrangements. It seems that the provisions for non-dom arrangements in particular rule out retrospective changes. The Government are saying clearly, “If you have a trust overseas before the rules kick in, don’t worry: we’re not going to touch that money.” Of course, the nature of so many of those trusts is that they are family trusts that are passed down and inherited. In effect, the Government are acknowledging that those trusts exist and that there is an unfairness, and they are setting out to do something about it hereafter, but they are not applying retrospective changes to non-doms in the same way that other measures will affect many others retrospectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth George]

rose—

[Wes Streeting]

I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Wes Streeting]

Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, my entire speech relates directly to the Ways and Means motions, but what I will do with the time that I have left is be careful to ensure that my critique is centrally about the extent to which the motions fail to address the structural challenges facing our economy. I will now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George).

[Ruth George]

The Finance Bill proposes to extend the reliefs available to people with non-domiciled tax status, who are some of the wealthiest people in the country. [Interruption.] Motion 13 does that. It contrasts with the actions taken in 2012, when the then Chancellor set up the business investment relief scheme, which itself contrasted with a VAT increase that not only dampened down the economy but caused the tax burden to fall disproportionately on the shoulders of those with lower incomes while reliefs were given to the very wealthy.

[Wes Streeting]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Let me make two points about what she has said. In the Budget and the Ways and Means motions, and in previous Budgets and resolutions, the Government have chosen to pursue particular regressive forms of taxation. There is no doubt that VAT is a regressive form of taxation, in that it is paid by everyone, both individuals and businesses, regardless of income. If I went into a shop and bought an item that was subject to VAT, I would pay the same rate as someone with a much lower income buying the same item.

If a Government’s objective is to increase their tax revenues—and, of course, we understand why that would be an objective, given the context of the Budget and the revenue-generation measures in the Ways and Means motions—they should pursue revenue generators that are based on progressive taxation, and ensure that those with the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden. We have heard those words, or a variation of those words, many times from the Treasury Bench, from successive Chancellors and in successive Budgets, but, as I have said previously, the rhetoric fails to match the reality.

As my hon. Friend has referred again to the issue of non-doms, let me again highlight the extent to which the motions fall short of what is required. Of course we welcome the Government’s measures on non-doms, but I have already criticised them for not addressing, in the Ways and Means motions, the ability of non-doms to keep their assets out of scope if they are held in an overseas trust that was created before they were deemed to be domiciled. We may also want to consider the issue of definition, because the definition of who can be deemed to be in that category seems misleading. It does give the impression that a UK-born non-dom will be deemed if they are now UK-resident, but, inexplicably, it only covers those whose parents were not non-doms, letting non-doms off the hook if their parents were also non-doms. That is very common.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

Absolutely. I welcome my hon. Friend to the Chamber. I am unsure whether it is a return to the nasty party or more of a doubling down on being the nasty party. Indeed, I am unsure for how many more debates we can see the nastiness of the Conservative party reflected in public policy. On this or any other measure, if the Government’s intention is to clamp down on the abuse of a particular tax measure, provision, break or exemption, we will welcome that where the problem is genuine, but the Opposition believe that this measure targets termination payments more widely. It therefore follows that there is an obvious concern that workers who are losing their jobs are seen by the Government as a source of increased revenue.

What an outrage it is if the Government are seeking a power to reduce the £30,000 tax-free amount for termination payments without the requirement for primary legislation. That runs contrary to assurances that the Government had abandoned their plans to reduce that exemption, which was consulted on in 2015. Those of us who were in the 2015 Parliament will remember that one of the first measures with which we were confronted was the Bill that became the Trade Union Act 2016, which was an appalling attack on the rights of people at work. The Government consulted on this proposal then, but dropped their plans because they were strongly resisted both by the people and by the organisations that champion the rights of and protections for ordinary working people. Now, early on in the 2017 Parliament, the plans are back, but buried in these motions, with the Government presumably hoping that we would not notice. I bet the Government did not count on such scrutiny of their Ways and Means measures.

[Ruth George]

Many workers are obviously losing their jobs as a result of the continued austerity programme. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is ironic that those who are losing their jobs at HMRC due to the rationalisation may well be hit by this increase in taxation on their compensation when they could be helping us to increase our tax revenue from those who should be taxed?

[Wes Streeting]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who brings to the House enormous expertise and experience from her work championing the rights of working people at the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, as part of the trade union movement. We should listen carefully to what she has to say.

On behalf of their members—ordinary working people—trade unions made it clear when the Government consulted that the measure should not be pursued. I think everyone in the Opposition thought that the Government had listened and dropped the provision, but we now see motion 4 on the Order Paper, and it is not fair to workers. We might have thought that the Government would learn from the embarrassing debacle over the summer about what happens when they try to clamp down on people’s access to justice and fair treatment. The Government have form here, and I am disappointed and only too sorry that they do not seem to have learned their lesson or listened to people.

I want to begin to draw my remarks to a close by—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the remarks made by the two preceding speakers, my hon. Friends the Members for North Durham (Mr Jones) and for Ilford North (Wes Streeting). I promise that having been in this House for only a short time, I cannot yet seek to match them for speaking stamina. I am sure that the rest of the House will not be too disappointed by that.

I would like to address how the Bill fits with the Government’s stated priorities. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister, writing in The Sun, promised

“to build a stronger, fairer Britain that works for everyone, not just the privileged few. A Britain…that works for ordinary working people.”

If those words are not mere rhetoric, they need to be backed up by legislation, and where better to put that legislation than in a Finance Bill? It is an opportunity for the Government to make our tax system and our society fairer. I am concerned, though, that the Bill will not only not make Britain fairer, but make our society more unequal.

I wish to concentrate on the effect of motion 4, which is on termination payments, and of motion 13, which is on business investment relief. Business investment relief applies only to non-domiciled UK taxpayers—120,000 people who are some of the wealthiest in our society. They are already able to choose whether their income is only taxed when it is brought into the UK. That gives a huge advantage to those who spend most of their lives outside our country, and whose income can be held in offshore accounts, trusts and shares.

Although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North said, I worked for the past 20 years or so for a trade union for working people, prior to that I worked as a tax accountant. On leaving school, I went to work in London for an international tax accountancy firm that specialised in advising non-domiciled individuals. These people were enormously wealthy, and included some well-known names. Even if their income was earned in the UK, if their earnings went directly into a non-UK account, they were not subject to UK taxation. In recent years, we have seen how that sort of manipulation of high incomes still goes on. It enables the very wealthiest people to pay a minimal contribution to the UK, even if they are deemed resident here. It is not the fault of this Government, but non-domiciled status was essentially created to avoid UK taxation.

For many people who travel globally, the system is not actually adaptable. For all their enormous wealth and jet-set lifestyles, I used to feel sorry for our non-domiciled clients when I was a teenager in a junior tax accountancy position. They were able to spend only a set number of days in the UK, and the enormous tax consequences of their overstaying that time limit meant that they felt they needed to adhere to it strictly, regardless of their own personal needs or wishes. Our accountancy firm used to keep a schedule in the front of each client’s file, setting out the number of days that they had set foot in the UK that tax year. The clients used to have to plan their personal and business engagements around the limits. When they got close to the limit, it was my job to write to inform them to be careful with their travel arrangements until 5 April, when the tax year came to an end and a new limit began. That is no way for people to have to live their lives or for a country to run its tax system.

The Government say they are cracking down on non-domiciled status, but, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North, it seems to be different from their crackdown on benefits for disabled people living on the breadline. Will the Minister confirm that non-domiciled individuals will see their status change only if they have not complied in 15 out of 20 years? Disabled people would love to have 15 years to show how their disability affects their lives and how it changes over time, but they are assessed on one day, at one particular time when they have managed to attend an assessment centre, and they are penalised immediately if they cannot do so. If there is a change in circumstance for non-domiciled residents, instead of their hugely beneficial tax status being changed immediately, the Government have given them two years in which to transfer their money to an offshore trust to again avoid paying any tax on it.

As if the tax benefits of non-domiciled status were not already generous enough, in 2012 the then Chancellor introduced business investment relief. I am sure that had nothing to do with the number of people of non-domiciled status with whom he spent his holidays on yachts, but it was certainly welcomed by their investment advisers. Firms such as Sapphire were pleased to advertise the benefits of business investment relief to their clients. The article on its website says:

“Unfortunately for the vast majority of us, when we earn money we have to pay tax…However, for those individuals who are resident in the UK but are considered non-domiciled this basic rule does not have to apply…From 6 April 2012, the government introduced the very attractive Business Investment Relief…Put simply, if you are resident in the UK but are…a “non-dom”…and you want to bring your overseas money into the UK to make an investment and NOT pay tax in the process—then Business Investment Relief is your answer…the UK Government is effectively giving non-doms a subsidy…on their investments”—

then it was 50%, now it is 45%. The company says:

“But wait—it gets better—you can also use the other reliefs when making an investment using offshore monies remitted to the UK”—

such as the enterprise investment scheme or the seed enterprise investment scheme, which will also potentially save 40% on an income tax bill. The advice that is given sets out how great the tax advantages are. An investment of £500,000 by someone with non-domiciled status would attract tax relief of £400,000.

Sapphire advertises how wide the opportunities are under business investment relief, saying:

“the rules for what makes up a qualifying company…are very wide. Quoted companies are excluded, but virtually any other company…carrying out a business may qualify…investment into property development or property with a rent is allowable.”

Do we really need more overseas investors increasing our property prices? It does not even have to be an arm’s length or transparent investment, as money

“can be invested in a company in which the investor is or associates are involved in”.

If someone wants to dispose of that investment and is worried about capital gains tax, they are advised:

“When the investment is sold, if there is a gain it will be subject to UK Capital Gains Tax—but the original funds can be taken back offshore again (within a 45 day or 90 day time period) in order to avoid being taxed”.

It is no wonder that despite all the rhetoric about cracking down on non-doms, their number has increased since 2010. The Government now want to make business investment relief even more generous through this Bill. This time, I quote the reputable KPMG, which sets out the benefits of the Government’s proposals, which have

“the objective of making the BIR scheme more attractive to non-UK domiciled investors…BIR will be extended to include investments made in a new qualifying entity, a ‘hybrid company’…not exclusively a trading company or a stakeholder company…but…a hybrid of the two”—

just in case someone could not fit their investment into one or other of them. It goes on:

“At the same time…the period during which an eligible trading company must start to trade,”

or

“an eligible stakeholder company must start to hold investments…will be increased to five years…Where a company becomes non-operational and a BIR investment ceases to qualify, the grace period during which action must be taken…will be increased to two years”

to manage the risk of a tax change more effectively. It also states:

“Another extension to BIR sees acquisitions of existing shares already in issue potentially qualifying for BIR… there will be no requirement for shares to have been newly issued…Rules which withdraw BIR will be narrowed”.

An already exceedingly generous scheme will be widened and extended in scope to enable more companies to be invested in and to enable more people to make those investments, be it in a trading company or a property. May I ask the Minister how that squares with the Prime Minister’s promise that we will create a fairer society by breaking down the barriers of privilege and making Britain a great meritocracy?

The treatment of non-domiciled taxpayers in the Bill contrasts with the treatment of ordinary working people. The Government’s huge cuts to public services have largely been on the back of those ordinary working people, none more so than the hundreds of thousands in the public sector who have lost their jobs.

Under the Government’s continued austerity programme, thousands more hard-working public servants will lose their employment. In many cases, they have given the majority of their working life to their job and will find it extremely hard to get another. As the state pension age increases, people made redundant later in their working life have to try to get by on their payment for termination of their employment for as long as possible. It is an extremely worrying time for them.

Two hospitals in my constituency are earmarked for ward closures, with dozens of experienced NHS staff worried about whether they will still have a job. To those hard-working hospital staff, who continue to give excellent care to their patients for which they are renowned, the Bill brings added uncertainty. The Government want Parliament to give them the power to vary the £30,000 tax-free limit for payments on termination of employment, but people will see less of that payment if that tax limit is reduced. The long-standing limit, which gives ordinary hard-working people the ability to make the most of the final payment from their job at a time when they need it most, is under threat. I hope the Minister can assure me that the Government will at no point seek to reduce the £30,000 tax-free limit on termination payments.

In another example of hitting hard-working people when they are down, the Bill seeks to tax the compensation for injury to feelings caused by a proven case of discrimination at work. Does the Minister realise what an employee has to go through to receive a compensation award for discrimination? Not only do they originally suffer that serious and long-lasting discrimination at work, but they also have to have made a complaint unsuccessfully through their employer’s procedures, having their claims refuted and exacerbating the hurt and distress. They then have to go through the whole process and complaint yet again, this time through an employment tribunal procedure. The process takes years of emotional distress and it is not surprising that only a handful of cases get through this arduous process.

Only 144 individuals were awarded compensation for discrimination in the past year, including 72 cases of disability discrimination, 33 cases of sex discrimination and nine cases of sexual orientation discrimination. Bearing in mind the small number of cases, this is not an effective revenue-raising measure. Until now, claimants have had to pay an employment tribunal fee of £1,250 to take a case of discrimination to an employment tribunal. Now that those fees have been ruled unlawful, does the Minister agree that victims of sustained and damaging discrimination will feel that taxation of their compensation payment will simply add financial insult to their injury? It is a worrying principle for the Government to commence taxing compensation—a measure to give redress from unfairness—which inflicts further unfairness on those who have already suffered enough.

I am relatively new to the House, but the Bill shows me and our wider electorate that, in spite of changing Ministers, the Government have not changed their spots. They are seeking to rush through these important measures with very little parliamentary scrutiny. These measures give even more to the wealthiest and take even more from hard-working people at the times they need it most. The Prime Minister has been long on rhetoric for tackling privilege and helping ordinary working people, but the Government speak a very different story in their actions in this Bill. Before the final Bill comes to the House, I urge the Minister to address the imbalance between rhetoric and action. He can either ensure that the Bill addresses the issues that his leader claims to seek to address or the Government can be straight with voters and say that their actions actually encourage privilege and knock working people when they are down.

Finance Bill (First sitting)

Ruth George Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st Sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady makes some valid points, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle. My question is: given that Which? uncovered back in 2015, the fact that the average cost of independent retirement advice on a £100,000 pension pot was £1,863, does she feel that £500 is an appropriate limit for tax relief?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, which highlights the issue. It would be useful to hear from the Minister about why £500 has been chosen, given that a £100,000 pension pot is not the biggest of pension pots and some people will have more in their pension pot than that. We need to hear from the Minister the reasons behind choosing that figure. It would also be useful to hear about how this might affect those women caught up in and disadvantaged by the Government’s changes to the state pension age, particularly those who have not been told about these changes.

Finance Bill (Second sitting)

Ruth George Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd Sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Peter Dowd]

We will not press the amendment to a vote but the Minister acknowledges, de facto, that the economy and the world of work is changing fast. There are so many developments out there—apps, online, the whole kit and caboodle—which is all the more reason for the Government to keep on top of this issue. That is why we want the review, because the world changes so quickly.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

Obviously, universal credit is being rolled out. That will be a particular detriment to people on very low incomes who are self-employed, because they will be deemed to earn the minimum wage on 35 hours a week throughout the year: around £13,600. If their actual income is below that at the moment, they can receive tax credits and are eligible to apply if they have children and a family. Under universal credit, they will not be able to receive such payments, though they may be liable for tax. That is another reason why a review after the roll-out of universal credit would be particularly useful, to see the impact on the self-employed and people with micro- businesses.

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. This is not quite as simple as the Minister would like us to believe, although I am not suggesting that he is trying to cajole us into it. The bottom line is that we will not push this to a vote today but we hope that the Minister takes into account the views we have expressed. If he does not wish to take account of our views, I exhort him to consider those of at least the two organisations that sent us documentation on the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 18

Carried-forward Losses

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

Finance Bill (Fourth sitting)

Ruth George Excerpts

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 19th October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Peter Dowd]

I actually was going to bring that, but the Chair has difficulty enough pronouncing English to check me on my Latin.

Added to that, we had a zombie Parliament throughout the summer, with the Minister announcing that the measures would not be brought back until September. In total, that means that the best-advised non-doms will have had two years’ advance notice, while even those with little to no advice would have had seven months to prepare, even without the Government’s grace period. That is why the Opposition are proposing that, at the very least, the Government conduct—the Minister will not be surprised to hear this—a review to assess the impact of leaving in the exemption for offshore trusts on the effectiveness of the measures.

Our opposition to these measures is well noted. I raised concerns over them on Second Reading of the Finance Act 2017. We raised them further in private discussions with the Government, to no avail, as well as during the Ways and Means resolutions debate and on Second Reading of the Bill, so our view is fairly well laid out. What we want is genuinely not unrealistic or far removed from the observations of most members of the public, which is, in short, the removal of the exemption for offshore trusts from these clauses and schedules. It is simply lubricious—I was thinking of another word—to introduce measures abolishing non-dom status while at the same time creating further loopholes. I would have used “disingenuous”, but no doubt you would have ruled me out of order, Mr Walker.

I ask the Minister once more, as I have at every stage of the Bill, to remove the exemption for offshore trusts. If the Government are truly committed to abolishing non-dom status and not just paying lip service to it, the Minister should have no problem doing so.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that creating this loophole, which enables non-domiciled individuals who are coming back into UK domicile to simply send funds to offshore trusts, creates work for accountants and tax specialists without actually assisting the Treasury or the Government?

[Peter Dowd]

That is a very good point. It is also actually creating an awful lot of work for us, given the amount of times we have asked for this to be dealt with. It is getting pretty repetitive. I do not know how many times we have to ask for this to be dealt with once and for all; no doubt we will come back to it time and again until something is sorted out.

This is not only about non-doms using offshore trusts to hide their money and essentially subvert the measures in the clause; it is about the source of the money and its value, particularly when we are discussing how to clamp down on tax avoidance. The Government should consider a register of offshore trusts, ensuring that non-doms have to register the sources of their property and income. Again, that request is not unreasonable to the public or to our constituents who elect and send us to this place, all of whom have to register the sources of their income with HMRC. In fact, a number of the measures in the Bill will require even more financial information to be passed on to HMRC through the bulk collection of financial data by third parties. It seems to many people that there is one law for one group and another for the rest of us. That cannot be right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

It is a moving feast. Dealing with tax avoidance is—to use the old hackneyed phrase—a process, not an event. That process, at different times over the decades, moves along at different paces and with varying levels of enthusiasm. We have to set the tone and send the message from this place that we will tackle tax avoidance wherever we see it occurring. We should all do that as robustly as we can. It is not a beauty contest between which party has done the most. The reality is that we all have to stick together in tackling tax avoidance. That is the reason for our proposal, which would move this process further on, regardless of what may or may not have happened in the past.

The contention between the Opposition and the Government on this part of the Bill highlights a fundamental problem with parliamentary procedure around financial legislation. Some argue—I do not necessarily agree—that it is ludicrous that the Government can introduce a measure that claims to abolish non-dom status with an exemption for offshore trusts, and that the Opposition are unable to push through an amendment that would remove it. That goes back to the point I made earlier when the Minister referred to a review-fest. That is one of the only tools the Opposition have in this situation, given the nature of proceedings.

I do not criticise that at all. We are where we are. It would be better if we were not here, in some regards, but we are. We are trying, with the tools available to us, to move the debate on. I understand the limited scope that the Opposition have to amend financial legislation, particularly on bringing more people into tax or raising revenue. That may have to be looked at, especially in the light of the Minister’s concern that we are partying too much on this issue.

[Ruth George]

Given that the only reason for a trust going offshore seems to be to engage a lower rate of taxation, will my hon. Friend join me in asking the Minister what the reasons are for the exemption for offshore trusts and for opposing listing those offshore trusts to ensure we have greater transparency in our tax system?

[Peter Dowd]

That is a fair point. I will hang on every word the Minister says when he explains that today; he will have my full attention and concentration.

The convention of the limit on parliamentary scrutiny, particularly at a time when the Government do not have a parliamentary majority, risks enfeebling the Opposition by denying us the ability to properly scrutinise the Government and their financial legislation—essentially, the ability to do our job. Here we are, with a limited armoury, and that is why we are asking for a review. It is important that this is as transparent and open as possible. This is the line I bring to the Committee and have put to the House a number of times: it is not a question of us, the Opposition, guarding the guards; it is a question of the public guarding the guards. That is why we have tabled this measure.

[Mel Stride]

Again, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker.

Members of the Committee are now turning their attention to clauses 29 to 32, which with schedules 8 and 9 bring an end to permanent non-dom status in the United Kingdom. This historic change was announced by the Government at the 2015 summer Budget. The provisions were then introduced in the Finance Bill in the last Parliament, but were removed at the Opposition’s request following the calling of the general election. At the time, the Government announced they would return to legislate these proposals at the earliest opportunity, and I am pleased to be able to deliver on that promise and introduce the changes from April 2017, as originally intended. I should perhaps pick up the comments by the hon. Member for Bootle, who suggested that the delays, such as they are, may in some way have favoured non-doms by delaying the introduction of these measures. These measures will be introduced, as we have always indicated, in April this year. In that sense, they are retrospective in a way in which I am sure he will approve.

As the Committee will be aware, individuals who are non-domiciled in the UK for tax purposes enjoy two significant advantages. The first is that where such individuals are resident in the UK, they have access to the remittance basis of taxation. That allows them to defer tax on any of their income and gains arising overseas until they are brought into the United Kingdom. The second big advantage is an inheritance tax rule, whereby those who are domiciled overseas need pay tax on only their assets that are situated in the UK, rather than on their assets worldwide. Those advantages have been a feature of the UK tax system for many years. As successive Governments have recognised, the advantages have played a big role in ensuring that the UK is an attractive place to live and work for people from around the world, and it should not be forgotten that non-doms have actually brought in around £9 billion each year in much-needed revenue for the Exchequer.

None the less, the Government recognise that there are some unfairnesses in the current rules for non-doms that need to be addressed. For example, the Government believe that it is unfair that someone can live in the UK for lengthy periods of time—in some cases, virtually their entire life—and continue to enjoy tax advantages that are not available to the vast majority of people who live and work in the UK. These provisions seek to address that unfairness, and I am sure that will enjoy cross-party support.

The changes being made by clause 29 will bring an end to the permanent non-dom status for the purposes of both income tax and capital gains tax. That means that from April 2017 anyone who has been resident in the UK for 15 or more of the previous 20 years can no longer be treated as a non-dom for tax purposes. They will instead be taxed in the same way as everybody else and pay tax on their worldwide income and gains. Likewise, anyone who was born here with a UK domicile of origin will also become deemed domiciled whenever they are resident in the UK. The clause fundamentally changes the way that non-doms pay tax in the UK, raising a further £1.6 billion over the next five years to fund our vital public services.

Clause 30 sets out how the deeming rules apply for the purposes of inheritance tax, ensuring that all those who become deemed domiciled under the new provisions are liable for UK inheritance tax in the same way as UK residents. Clause 31 ensures that individuals who become deemed domiciled under the new provisions pay the right amount of tax on any benefits they receive from overseas trusts that they set up while they were domiciled outside the UK. Finally, clause 32 ensures that a double charge is prevented by excluding gains that represent carried interest from the trust charging provisions.

The hon. Member for Bootle wants the removal of what he terms “the exemptions” from off-shore trusts for those who have become deemed domiciled under these new proposals. I assure him, and he should reflect on the fact, that any moneys coming out of those trusts for whatever purpose will be taxed once an individual becomes deemed domiciled.

There is also an important matter of proportionality here. As I have already indicated, the Exchequer raises around £9 billion per year from those who are non-domiciled in the United Kingdom. That is a huge amount of money, which goes some way to paying for our doctors and nurses, our armed forces and so on. These measures will raise a further £1.6 billion over the scorecard period, as I have indicated.

[Ruth George]

How can the Treasury be so sure of the projected future income of £1.6 billion when there is a loophole for transferring money to offshore trusts that could be used to avoid the taxation? How can those future projections possibly be calculated?

[Mel Stride]

I am clearly not in a position to share with the hon. Lady the entire ins and outs of all the intricacies of calculating such figures, but I can assure her that the numbers are looked at in great detail and are scored by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. They are robust figures, albeit that no figures are entirely, absolutely guaranteed in cast iron ahead of time—but they are robust.

During the debate, the hon. Lady raised an important issue about transparency of trust arrangements. The UK is right at the forefront of greater transparency. We spearheaded an initiative to systematically share information on beneficial ownership arrangements with more than 50 countries. That will help law enforcement to unravel complex, cross-border changes in companies and trusts. Following our work with international partners, by September 2018 more than 100 jurisdictions will be sharing information with the UK under the common reporting standard, which will provide HMRC with taxpayer information from tax authorities around the world, enabling it to better target tax evaders.

That brings me to my next point. The hon. Member for Bootle would have us believe two things: that we are only on the side of the wealthy and that we are not actually that interested in clamping down on tax avoidance. On the first point, I remind the Committee that the top 1% of earners in this country pay 27% of all taxes. That is virtually at an historic high, and is certainly higher than was the case under the previous Labour Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Just a tad.

[Ruth George]

rose—

[Mel Stride]

I think I might make a little progress.

[Ruth George]

I was going to return to the matter in hand.

[Mel Stride]

If the hon. Lady will let me make a little progress, perhaps we will have time later.

Another point the hon. Member for Bootle raised was the suggestion that we are somehow slack or not concerned about tax avoidance. This Government have clamped down on avoidance to the extent that we have brought in £160 billion in revenue by clamping down on tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance. We have done that despite his constant assertions that HMRC is under-resourced and incapable of acting. We are bringing in record levels of compliance income at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

We support measures to increase the uptake in electric vehicles, and we recognise that creating more electric vehicle charge points is a part of that. However, I would be grateful if the Minister addressed two questions.

First, as I understand it—he will correct me if I have the wrong end of the stick—the clause focuses on firms that invest at least £200,000 a year in plants and machines. Small business will not be able to take advantage of the same tax breaks, and I am concerned that that could create an imbalance. In town centres with a zero-carbon target—the first was in my home city of Oxford—businesses are required to use only electric vehicles or other zero-carbon modes of transport, so it is important that they are on a level playing field. Is there an imbalance? I may have misunderstood the legislation, but I would appreciate the Minister’s thoughts.

Secondly, how does the policy relate to other measures within the fiscal system that aim to promote low-carbon technologies? The founder and CEO of the renewable energy investor Rockfire Capital states:

“Increasing availability of charging for electric cars is all very good but the biggest challenge is making sure the energy used is as green as the cars. These measures are a drop in the ocean compared with what is actually required.”

Removing the renewable energy exemption from the climate change levy has reduced the tax incentives for business to invest in large-scale renewable energy schemes. Green cars are only green if green energy is going into them.

[Ruth George]

Like my hon. Friend, I am pleased to see decent allowance made for expenditure on electric vehicle charge points. It is much needed, particularly in my rural constituency, where it will be difficult to install the infrastructure in a way that business can comply with. I echo her point about small businesses. I understand that the Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill may introduce a requirement for service stations to install electric vehicle charge points. Many service stations are independently owned; it seems particularly hard on them that they will not receive tax incentives for installing charge points, but larger companies will.

Will the Minister explain why the cut-off date is 31 March 2019 for corporation tax and 5 April 2019 for income tax? The technology is already being produced but will change constantly over the next few years. It is important to ensure that companies can consider the full range of technology coming on the market and adapt their charging points to the most successful and future-proofed. For that reason, it seems odd to include an arbitrary time limit. Can the Minister explain that?

[Mel Stride]

I have a direct answer for the hon. Members for High Peak and for Oxford East: the relief will be available to businesses of all sizes. I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for High Peak about her own constituents in that context.

The hon. Member for Oxford East raised the general issue of whether the electricity going through the charging points would be green enough. It is probably not the purpose of the Committee to determine that, but I certainly share her aspiration that we should encourage as much green energy as possible, which is why we are investing so much in the shift from traditional power generation to greener alternatives. She also quoted the suggestion that the number of charging points was a drop in the ocean, which is why we hope that such tax reliefs will help set up charging points as quickly as possible.

The hon. Member for High Peak also asked about the March and April dates for tax year ends for the different categories.

[Ruth George]

It was simply why the cut-off is there.

[Mel Stride]

I thought the question was about March and April. The reason for March and April was that individuals and companies have different tax year ends in that respect.

[Ruth George]

May I clarify? I was simply asking why there was a 2019 cut-off, not why there were two dates of 31 March and 5 April, which I think is fairly widely understood.

[Mel Stride]

I believe that is the review date—the point at which we would naturally want to look again at the issue and see how the roll-out has occurred.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 38 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.



Clause 40

Co-ownership authorised contractual schemes: capital allowances

Finance Bill (Fifth sitting)

Ruth George Excerpts

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Kirsty Blackman]

The Scottish National party has previously raised concerns about the moves to digital reporting. It is not that we do not support the principle of moving towards digital reporting. We have been clear that we think this could be a positive move. The concerns that we have raised previously have been about the timing of the moves and the way in which smaller companies were expected to move to digital reporting first. The Minister, to his credit, has changed the proposed plans and come up with a much more sensible direction and timeline for moving to digital reporting than the Government previously suggested.

Our amendment highlights specific concerns about the move to digital reporting, which, despite the Government’s changes and moves, we still feel have not been adequately answered. The amendment deals with the impact on specific groups that we feel might be negatively affected by the move to digital reporting.

The first group is small businesses that have limited technology for connectedness. There are small businesses that do not make that much use of the internet. There are some coming through that are wholly internet-based, and for which it is very important; but some are still starting that are not technologically advanced and do not use the internet much. We are concerned about the impact on them of having to report digitally online, in view of their access to technology. The businesses in question are not only in rural areas; they may just be run by someone who does not make huge use of the internet.

The second group is businesses in rural areas. In those areas in particular, even though commitments have been given by the Scottish and UK Governments about improving access to digital connectivity, at the moment not everyone has a fast enough internet connection to enable them to access the relevant services. If it is mandatory for businesses to use online digital reporting, that will be a problem for those without access to adequate technology—particularly in rural areas. Areas in England are affected, as well as those in more remote parts of Scotland. I understand that there have been Government commitments to get people on to digital systems, but we are not quite there yet.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that, in areas such as the remoter parts of Scotland, as in areas of my constituency, broadband access can be intermittent? The Government have excluded from the provision those who are completely digitally excluded. However, there are areas with patchy broadband—people have it on some days but not others—and there could be a problem for people who do not fall in the group that the Government have excluded.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I agree. In Kingswells in my constituency, which is a large suburb of Scotland’s third city, there are significant issues about access to fast broadband. There is access to slow broadband, and it is sometimes intermittent, for reasons to do with historical infrastructure. Broadband companies were put on the grid to begin with and they now find it more difficult to upgrade the historical technology. I appreciate the point that the hon. Lady has made; it is important to note that for some people intermittent access can be as difficult as no access.

The third category of businesses we have chosen is those likely to be affected by the closure of HMRC offices. I have needed to do tax returns online only since I became an MP. The problem with some of the questions is that yes or no are the options but my answer has been “maybe” or “kind of”. Despite the fact that the online form was fairly clear, I needed to phone someone to get some advice on whether to tick yes or no. If businesses lack advice and information from HMRC about the correct option to choose in some cases, it will be more difficult for them to fill out the forms.

It is important that businesses should be given the advice, information and support they need to fill in the forms correctly online. I am sure that no businesses will be trying to make errors; they will be looking for advice. My concern, particularly regarding HMRC offices, is the lack of access to advice that people might have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Lady for what is a slightly loaded question, if I may say so. I am certainly not prepared to wait for abuses of any kind, but I am prepared to wait, and it is right to wait, for a deep and considered consultation, as opposed to a short debate in the context of the Finance Bill. That is the critical point to bear in mind on this matter.

The clauses before us provide for making tax digital for business. That concerns the way in which businesses record and report their tax liabilities. The hon. Lady made some powerful points about the treatment of service charges, but I believe that they would be better pursued through the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. It has responsibility for this area and is best placed to ensure that tips, gratuities and service charges are treated in line with the principles of clarity and transparency set out in its recent consultation. Dealing with the matter through legislation on digital taxation would risk missing crucial elements for employees or businesses that have been captured in the submissions to the consultation.

[Ruth George]

Bearing in mind that national minimum wage legislation can be implemented by BEIS only on an individual basis, when an individual complains, and such cases can be settled only on an individual basis, does the Minister not agree that a wider remit than that of BEIS will be required to tackle substantive abuses that go across whole workforces, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady raises an extremely important matter, which is those employers who do not adhere to the requirements of the national minimum wage. HMRC and the Treasury take that extremely seriously, and we have mechanisms in place, as she may know, for reporting instances of that where they occur. I can assure her that the Treasury is the Ministry directly responsible for strategic oversight of HMRC and that HMRC takes any abuse of the national minimum wage requirements and regulations in this country extremely seriously, and pursues and brings to book those who commit abuses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

As I just said to the hon. Lady, we can say in relation to any aspect of HMRC’s operation or any of the rules that it is there to clamp down on that we want regular reporting and all the rest of it. The point is that as a Ministry, the Treasury is there to have strategic oversight of HMRC and to ensure that it is behaving in an appropriate way and chasing down tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance in whatever form they may appear, including the forms that she has raised. We will continue to do just that.

[Ruth George]

Bearing in mind that individuals have to raise a complaint in order to secure an investigation by HMRC compliance, and that the workers we are talking about are some of the most vulnerable and most susceptible to exploitation, immediate dismissal or changes to their terms and conditions because they are often not in the workplace for a substantial length of time, does the Minister agree that it would be helpful if HMRC were able proactively to investigate these schemes, rather than having to wait for individual vulnerable employees to put themselves at risk by raising a complaint?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady overlooks the fact that it is often possible for those who wish to complain to do so anonymously through their trade union or other representatives. That is what happens in many cases. HMRC does not have to rely on a specific complaint to conduct an investigation. It may have suspicions of its own for a variety of reasons. I do not think that we are in a position where people are unable to come forward, as she suggests.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North has tabled two amendments that seek to review the impact of MTD on specific groups. I recognise her concerns, but the Government have been clear from the outset that businesses that are unable to go digital will not be required to do so.

If you will indulge me, Mr Howarth, it is worth looking at some of the detail of the Bill at this point. The hon. Lady has raised a very important point about potential digital exclusion. Clause 60 covers exemptions, as I am sure she is aware. New sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 14 of schedule A1 states:

“The digital exclusion condition is met”—

for those who would not be required to put in their returns digitally—

“in relation to a person or partner if…for any reason (including age, disability or location)”—

the hon. Lady rightly raised rural localities—

“it is not reasonably practicable”—

that is not the same as completely impossible—

“for the person or partner to use electronic communications or to keep electronic records”.

I think that is a well-crafted clause to catch the kind of circumstances about which the hon. Lady and I are concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

As the Minister has helpfully set out, the measures will introduce new penalties for tax avoidance enablers. Specifically, penalties charged will be equal to the amount of consideration received or receivable by the enabler for their role in enabling the tax avoidance arrangements that were defeated.

Our amendments 41 and 42 would require the publication of information about how the new scheme will operate. Specifically, we think it is necessary for lawmakers, the public and others to be aware of who is being penalised through these new tax measures; the nature of the abusive tax arrangements that have been uncovered and dealt with; the extent to which they apply to offshore income, assets and activities; and the extent to which successful criminal prosecution is used rather than this penalty.

We think that that information is necessary because we are concerned that, although it is a welcome step, this measure is potentially insufficient. We are concerned that the Minister’s aspirations for this measure to have a behavioural impact might not be realised, and that concern relates specifically to the extent of the penalty.

As I have said, the penalties charged will be equal to the amount of consideration received or receivable by the enabler for their role in enabling the tax avoidance. Therefore, in effect, they will be required to pay back merely the payment they received for the inappropriate arrangement in the first place. That payment might not even cover HMRC’s costs of investigation and recovery.

As I understand it, penalties have been reduced after consultation, which is regrettable. Given that this is the Finance Bill, we cannot suggest that those penalties should be restored to a level that would cover HMRC’s costs—that would be inadmissible. None the less, we can ask for the information that we will require to assess whether this regime is watertight and driving the behavioural change suggested by the Minister.

[Ruth George]

Does my hon. Friend think that the clause provides HMRC with any impetus to investigate such schemes at an early stage? At that point, very little tax may be recoverable, resulting in a smaller penalty. That would create a perverse incentive to delay investigations until greater charges can be levied in order to cover HMRC’s costs. I would hope that the Minister would want to incentivise the early investigation of such schemes.

[Anneliese Dodds]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about the potential perverse incentives created by focusing uniquely on HMRC receiving payment from the client for the creation of such schemes and the enrolling of individuals and firms on to them, rather than on the activity of creating those schemes in the first place and, above all, on HMRC’s costs as a result of investigating them.

All of us, as Members of Parliament, are well aware of the kinds of schemes under discussion. It was interesting to hear the Minister mention the principle of eliminating those schemes that no reasonable person would think should be followed by taxpayers. We have voluminous evidence that that is not currently the case. We need only look at some of the flow charts produced and revealed during the Lux and Panama leaks to be aware that there clearly is an industry in creating such tax avoidance schemes.

We need very tough measures against those schemes. Given that they could be costing the Exchequer dearly, we feel it is appropriate to have a greater amount of information about the measures and, in particular, to compel HMRC and the Government to publish that information in full so that we can assess their efficacy.

Finance Bill (Sixth sitting)

Ruth George Excerpts

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th October 2017 Public Bill Committees

If we assume average real estate growth of around 8% a year, we are potentially missing out on £8 billion of tax revenue. The Minister may tell me that number is over-inflated, and that the real number is closer to £1 billion. I would be happy for him to prove me wrong, but the only way he can do that is by publishing the data on that quarter of properties. Through that we can understand how many are sold and how much capital gains tax this country is missing out on because we do not give British businesses the fair treatment they deserve when they are competing against non-dom companies.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend think that the definition of commercial properties would include properties that were previously residential, such as those in my constituency in the Peak district? They were residential homes, but they were sold to owners who live outside the area and are now used primarily as second homes, although they are rented for a very small number of weeks during the year. That has turned them into commercial properties, severely depleting the number of homes available to local people, particularly in rural areas of outstanding natural beauty.

[Stella Creasy]

My hon. Friend has shown how simple it is to evade the tax by avoiding the loophole—the previous Chancellor tried to close it by ensuring that non-doms paid capital gains tax on the sale of residential property—simply by repurposing a building as commercial property. Even given the rules on closed companies in existing legislation, people can get around the charge. I am suggesting that the figure could be as much as £8 billion. I certainly think that at least £1 billion of public revenue could come from closing the loophole and simplifying the way we treat non-doms with capital gains tax. The Minister may have a different number, but the point of the new clause is to get the number.

The Bill is about how we manage public finances. Giving this tax loophole to non-doms means that our British businesses are unfairly treated and our property market faces artificial pressure. We are missing out on vital funds that could go into our public services. The new clause is not a magic money tree; it is a concrete cash cow. If the Minister will not agree to publishing the data, will he commit to looking at how we can close the loophole?

[Mel Stride]

New clause 2—I think it is now known as the concrete cash cow clause—provides us with an opportunity to discuss the rules surrounding UK commercial property and those who are foreign-domiciled. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow explained, her new clause would require HMRC to review the taxation of capital gains on commercial property disposal by UK taxpayers with a foreign domicile.

There is no question but that all UK residents, whether UK-based or non-domiciled, are chargeable for tax on profits from selling UK land. That includes non-domiciles who are taxed on a remittance basis, where foreign income and gains are taxed only when they are brought into the UK. Our tax base is predominantly those who are resident in the United Kingdom. As the hon. Lady has drawn to our attention, recent changes removed non-residents into the UK tax base for the sale of UK residential property. The new clause raises the fact that that treatment does not extend to non-residents for the sale of commercial property in this country. While I understand why she suggests that extending the laws would raise revenue, I should point out that this is a very complex area, which needs to be carefully considered.

The 2015 rules were designed to catch individuals and ways in which a person may hold title over a dwelling such as via trusts and closely held companies. They do not apply to companies with lots of shareholders. The structures that are used to own commercial property are different from residential property, often more complex and involving corporates, joint ventures and specialist property vehicles. We would need rules that address such structures and get to the heart of the ultimate owner.

Will the hon. Lady consider this illustration? I might live in Canada and own 50% of a home in Walthamstow. I might easily conceive, if I did not know for sure, that selling my part of the house in the UK would mean paying some UK tax. However, imagine instead that I own a handful of shares in a fund of some kind, which in turn owns half an office block in Walthamstow. Being such a minor shareholder, I may not even know how my money is invested. To send the tax man chasing round overseas for the little shareholder in a commercial building would hardly be cost-effective. We would need to design balanced rules that look at how the market works and what would yield the Exchequer the best return.

Extending the current rules to include any UK property is not a simple matter of striking through “residential property” and inserting “all UK property” into the current provisions, as this would not take into account the intrinsic differences in the way that commercial properties are owned and dealt with.

[Ruth George]

Does the Minister agree that now that we are seeing residential property increasingly acquired by such complex structures, and that by eradicating the omission for commercial properties, it would simplify the legislation? HMRC would not have to establish whether a property was commercial or residential because there are so many grey areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow pointed out.

[Mel Stride]

The point I was trying to make was not so much whether one classified a property as residential or commercial. My point was that where it is commercial, the ownership arrangements can be so complicated that this kind of approach is far from simple.