Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

(ii) so far as it is applicable to services, applies to services of every description.

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I should inform the House that I have selected amendments (b) and (a), so both can be debated together with the Budget motions today. With the leave of the House, I will call the shadow Chancellor to move amendment (b) after the Chancellor has opened the debate. At the end of the day’s debate, the Question will first be put on amendment (b). As long as time permits before 7 pm, I shall then call the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) to move amendment (a) formally, and the Question on that amendment will be put. The House will then proceed to decide on the Budget resolutions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron]

I thank the Chancellor for giving way, and I want to associate myself with the remarks that he made earlier about the appalling situation in Brussels.

Does the Chancellor agree with me that the one thing that is more dangerous for our economy than his remaining Chancellor is that we might leave the European Union; and does he agree that his being called out by his former colleague as acting not in the economic interests of the country, but in a short-term political way, introduces a risk that the referendum will be a referendum on him, not on the future of our role in Europe? Will he act in the national interest and resign?

[Mr Speaker]

May I remind Members that interventions should be brief? We want to hear from both Front Benchers, and I want to hear from dozens of Back Benchers. I repeat that interventions should be brief.

[Mr Osborne]

That was like one of those interminable interventions at ECOFIN. I happen to think that it is better to be in that council than not, but that is a debate for another day. We are talking here about the reforms we are making to welfare and to our economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Osborne]

I have already said that we are not going ahead with those changes. [Interruption.] I have addressed these issues. The truth is that that family and many more families are getting increased support under this Government. We would not be able to provide any of that support unless we had a strong economy and we controlled public spending, because the people who suffer most when the economy—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for having to interrupt the Chancellor. [Interruption.] Order. Members are yelling—in some cases, from sedentary positions—very noisily. If people put questions to the Chancellor, they must leave him to respond. The same will go for Government Back Benchers when they no doubt challenge Members speaking from the Opposition Benches. Let us try to restore some sort of order to this debate.

[Mr Osborne]

Mr Speaker—

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

Mr Speaker, you heard me share the sentiments of the whole House on the issue of Belgium. To bring that into the debate as a political point at this stage is unacceptable. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I made it clear earlier that attempts to shout the Chancellor down were unacceptable. That was made very, very clear and I do not think anybody would doubt or deny it. I make it similarly clear that no attempt in this Chamber will be successful if it is an attempt to shout down the shadow Chancellor. Get the message: it ain’t gonna happen.

[John McDonnell]

On that Friday before last, there was outrage among disability groups—the Multiple Sclerosis Society, Parkinson’s UK and Disability Rights UK. Why? Because all of them, like many of us, had gone through that process of agreeing the criteria—at least coming to some compromise on what would constitute the criteria for access to this benefit. But the Chancellor moved the goalposts, those already agreed through consultation. Disabled people and their families have been sick with worry about the threats to their benefits.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has called into question the morality of the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, but would the hon. Gentleman please discuss with this House the morality that allows him to stand with bombers who murdered my friends in Northern Ireland and to question the integrity of the Chancellor? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before we proceed further, perhaps I can just say to the House, on my own account and on the basis of sound procedural advice, that we must stick to the matter of the Budget. [Interruption.] Order. I do not require any comeback or any comment, agreement or disagreement. Let us proceed in a seemly manner with the debate. That is in the House’s interest, and that is what the country has a right to expect.

[John McDonnell]

This is a challenge to the judgment of the Chancellor.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

Will he give way? [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. [Interruption.] Order. Leave me to deal with this. Mr Cleverly, I have known you for years and you have always struck me as a very polite fellow. You are getting over-excited, young man. You will have an opportunity to intervene, perhaps in due course, but you don’t do it like that. Learn from a few old hands.

[Pete Wishart]

I am surprised that the shadow Chancellor is taken in by some of the crocodile tears from the Tories and this concern for the disabled. Surely he agrees that this is nothing to do with the Tories’ new-found concern for the disabled in this country—it is all about their euro civil war.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

I shall be in trouble with the Speaker and everyone else who wants to speak if I give way. Otherwise I would love to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Speaker]

Let me say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he has never been in trouble with the Speaker.

[Mr Clarke]

I am trying to be reasonably concise rather than too expansive. I apologise to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz).

I tried to think of what I would have done had I been Chancellor in the present situation. Before the Budget was delivered, I expected a much tougher Budget. Thank the Lord that I am not in my right hon. Friend’s position; I never had to face problems of the kind that he inherited from his predecessor. My instincts are classic, traditional stuff for anyone for whom the iron of the Treasury has entered the soul. This is the first Budget after an election, we have not made fast enough progress in eliminating the deficit and debt, and we will not have sound future progress with a modern rebalanced economy unless we have done that, so my first thoughts would have been to get on with it.

I would have introduced a Budget, as I frequently did in my time, raising taxes and cutting public expenditure. I am glad to hear, for reasons that I shall return to later, that my right hon. Friend has committed himself to his continuing long-term objective, and has decided to pause. I thought this was going to be a popular Budget. People speculate as to why we chose an easier path. [Interruption.] The Chancellor has in the short term relaxed fiscal policy. It is good that the Bank of England is retaining a very relaxed monetary policy, but it will tighten it if we were to abandon fiscal discipline. In the short term, my right hon. Friend has lowered taxation and lowered Department spending targets for cuts. He has eased off on public spending and lowered taxation. I was surprised by that.

I assume that this was partly caused by the considerable uncertainty that the economy faces. No one has addressed that issue in any of these debates, although the Chancellor did in his Budget speech. The global economy is slowing down, and mainly as a consequence of that, the British economy is slowing down. The uncertainties for our economic prospects over 2016 are very concerning. There are many uncertainties, all of which would threaten most of the developed economies if things go wrong. We still do not know whether China, for example, is going to achieve a soft landing; I think it will. In the emerging markets—there are associated problems with emerging market debt—there is volatility and some unsoundness in the financial world.

And there is the risk of Brexit. I am very glad that the Governor of the Bank of England decided to reassure people by setting out publicly that he was prepared to take action if we had a flight of capital from this country should people be alarmed about the referendum. So far, such risk has led only to a big decline in the value of sterling and the freezing of most people’s investment plans. One would be a bit of an idiot to invest in the British economy in anything that had the slightest risk when we do not know what the circumstances and trading patterns are going to be in six months’ time.

I assume one reason why my right hon. Friend took a more relaxed view than a traditional Chancellor would have done and did not make those big spending cuts or increase taxation—in fact, he eased taxation for businesses and the low-paid—was to avoid the mistake of being too severe when circumstances might well worsen as the year goes on. That underlines the point that, in the long term, one cannot forecast and fix these kind of things further forward.

A great deal of the debate around the Budget centred on the forecasts and the Office for Budget Responsibility. The fact that the OBR’s forecasts keep changing so rapidly just underlines what I am saying about the uncertainties for the immediate future. Fortunately, thanks to my right hon. Friend, the British economy has been the fastest growing developed economy in the last 12 months, and we are probably less at risk than most others. However, the fact remains that this was a time to be cautious. Personally, I would have maintained the squeeze—it has all been put off until the latter half of this Parliament, and into the next if we are not careful—because so long as the economy continues to grow, and there is a reasonable prospect that it will, we should not be running a deficit of this percentage of GDP, piling up more debt for our successors.

My doubt is whether this pause was totally justified. I accept that it probably was; but certainly we must resume things. I listened to a shadow Chancellor who plainly does not have an idea in his head about how he would save any money or do anything other than continue spending and borrowing. It is totally profligate stuff, as we have seen very much in the past.

I am very glad that my right hon. Friend made the changes to business taxation. When I was in office, I put up taxes, but I never put up business taxes because I was trying to encourage growth. We still need to make our economy stronger, so it is welcome that the Chancellor stepped in, keeping our corporation tax level at a competitive rate. I particularly welcome the help he has given to small and medium-sized businesses. Encouraging business is, of course, the best way of protecting ourselves against economic risks for the future in this uncertain world.

My right hon. Friend has not been wholly generous towards big business. He and the Government have been leading in the OECD on attempts to tackle the problem of tax evasion and tax avoidance on the part of big multinational companies. He has incorporated the first serious attempt for a long time to attack the problems of tax relief on interest when it is exploited and misused, on royalties and on past losses. I get told a lot about how the Chancellor should be collecting more from big international companies, but no Government have done a blind thing about tackling this tax avoidance for the past 20 years. This Government are leading international discussion towards agreement, which is what is needed, and in this Budget, the Chancellor has started to act.

We are told that we are relieving tax on the rich, but everybody knows—I certainly know, and not just from the newspapers—that the Treasury has been looking at the idea of doing more on tax relief for the wealthy when they contribute to their pension funds. If they have very high earnings, tax relief on pension funds is the way of avoiding tax and it is a great way of ensuring that 45% tax is not paid on a very considerable part of one’s income. That was the case, but we have now put a cap on it. I feel that we are still rather too generous, but in today’s politics that was another lobby, and when someone leaked it, it was seen off by the pensions industry in about 10 days flat. So my right hon. Friend was not allowed—on that occasion, I suspect, because of fear about what would happen on this side of the House—to proceed with fairly modest changes in tax relief for the rich.

As far as other tax moves that my right hon. Friend has made, on personal allowances and the thresholds for the higher rate, because the higher paid—the rich—now pay such a huge proportion of tax, it is almost impossible for Chancellors to ease the tax burden on the low-paid and the ordinary citizen without it being possible to demonstrate mathematically that they have done quite a lot for the rich as well. If Chancellors bought that argument every year, they would never move the threshold at which people start to pay tax, and they would never raise the 40% rate for the people who are currently in modest jobs and find that they are subject to a marginal rate of 40% because Gordon Brown started the habit of freezing the threshold in order to secure stealth taxation. Raising these thresholds is welcome, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend felt able to do it.

Other measures should be seriously canvassed. The pensioner benefits, to which I am entitled, are discussed every now and again. I am always told that we have put things in a manifesto, but I have yet to meet a candidate or an elector who read the last general election manifesto, which, although it seems to contain considerable detail, was certainly not crucial to my constituency victory, or, I suspect, to anyone else’s. We have ruled out ever raising income tax, ever raising national insurance, ever raising VAT; we appear to have ruled out doing anything at all that would stop the very wealthiest people having free bus passes and receiving the winter fuel allowance. I am not going to advocate the breaking of manifesto pledges, but I know of no prosperous pensioners, and certainly none who are in full-time employment like me, who would object to, at the very least, those benefits being made taxable.

I think that there is a case for considering those measures and various alternatives, but I will not risk going into it any further, first for reasons of time, and secondly because, given today’s populist politics, I fear that if I do, some lobby yet unknown to me will descend on me in the next two or three days in order to mount a campaign, through our ridiculous media, to blow that case out of the water.

Of course we must judge the Budget on its own merits, and I understand why my right hon. Friend has got to where he is. No two Chancellors have ever done the same in respect of every measure. Within our system, a Chancellor makes an overall judgment, and this Chancellor retains my full confidence: I am prepared to support his judgment.

I have another reason for supporting my right hon. Friend’s judgment. As I have already said, the present Government are in a strange position. Absolutely no alternative proposition is being advanced by anyone outside. Some pundits, and, as a result, some politicians, seem to believe that we are wrong to maintain our target of a balanced budget over the cycle, or however we choose to put it. They suggest that, actually, there are no problems, and the answer is simply always to run a deficit, on and on and on. After all, it is free money. It is a bit troublesome that interest rates might return to normality one day, but meanwhile, just let it pile up: it will sort itself out.

People on the far right say “Tax cuts, that is all you want. Tax cuts will inspire such tremendous entrepreneurship that jobs will be created, wealth will be created, and it will all be paid back. You will not be in debt for long.” On the left, the argument is “Boost every welfare payment, increase public spending on every public service, and that will generate such demand from the grateful taxpayer recipients that they will pump it into the economy, and it will pay for itself.” That is Mickey Mouse economics, as practised by the last Labour Government, and it got us into this trouble that we are still—thanks to my right hon. Friend—getting out of now.

As for my final reason for backing my right hon. Friend’s judgment, his record, after eight Budgets and six years, is absolutely amazing. I must concede, having been one of his competitors at one point, that he is far the most successful departmental Minister in this Government to date. If anyone had said, when he took over the state of affairs that he took over more than eight Budgets ago, that he would stand here, in charge of the fastest growing economy in the developed world, with near-full employment and with employment at record-breaking heights, able to demonstrate the steadily improving state of not only the public finances but the condition of the poor, as well as the alleviation of social problems across the country, that person would not have been believed. It is a quite remarkable performance.

So I back my right hon. Friend’s judgment. I am also delighted that he is helping us all to avert the risk of Brexit in the forthcoming referendum, because, if the public were so ill advised to vote for it, that would be the only thing that could really send this economic recovery off the rails in a big way.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before I call the spokesman for the Scottish National party, it may be convenient for the House to know that, owing to the level of demand among those wishing to contribute to the debate, a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches will have to take effect immediately after his own speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

I have spent the last 15 years setting up and running businesses. As someone who has done that, I am glad that it is this Chancellor who is sitting in that seat, because he is the man who has created jobs and helped businesses like mine! [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just say, for the benefit of the House, that moderation and good humour are the precepts of “Erskine May”. Members on both sides of the House can learn from the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who has just given a textbook example of a robust speech made with good humour. Many Opposition Members can do the same, and new Members could learn from them.

[George Kerevan]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I serve on the Treasury Committee with the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), and I did not take what he said personally.

If we do not get productivity, what happens? We do not get growth. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) gave us a wise presentation, as he normally does, but he slipped up a little. He said that, under this Chancellor, the United Kingdom had experienced the fastest growth in the developed world. That is not true. As he phrased it, it is not true—unless, of course, Australia is not developed; unless, of course, the United States is not developed; unless, of course, Sweden is not developed; unless, of course, Korea is not developed; unless, of course, Spain is not developed. All those countries experienced faster GDP growth than the UK in 2015, largely because they experienced faster productivity growth. That is what this Chancellor has not delivered. That is not what this Budget contains. And that is this Budget’s weakness.

If we look at the failure of productivity growth in the UK under this Chancellor, we see that productivity is lagging in practically every commercial and industrial sector. Crucially, productivity has been falling by an average of 1% a year in the financial services industry—our flagship industry, our key service industry, the industry that is leading our service exports. This Chancellor has devoted a lot of time and effort to reconstructing the financial services sector—I grant him that—but what have we got? Falling productivity. According to the Office for National Statistics, productivity in the British financial sector, including insurance, is now behind the level of financial services productivity in France and Italy. That is not a great record, Chancellor. Here is the bottom line: if we do not have productivity growth, the cash economy will not grow, wages will not grow and income to the Treasury will therefore not grow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am afraid that, so that I can try to accommodate the maximum number of Members who have not yet spoken, I must reduce the time limit on Back-Bench speeches to three minutes, with immediate effect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

This was a Budget about words, not wisdom. I want to focus on that because we have now had six years of the Chancellor presiding over a very worrying economic picture while using a narrative to disguise the fragile place into which he has put our economy. It is also a Budget that exposed the worst aspects of the cruel, callous and uncaring Conservatives, crushing disabled people and some of the most vulnerable and economically disadvantaged groups in our society. Those actions over the past six years have worried me as the weaknesses in the structure of the economy have not been addressed and the economy has been used to deliver a political agenda, not productivity and not fiscal security.

This is leading to a risk shift, increasingly away from Government to local communities and individuals—those who cannot weather the storm. Politicians can use any words they want, but what lingers behind those words is what matters. Apprenticeships are not apprenticeships any more, the living wage is not a living wage, and affordable housing is unaffordable. Remember the phrase “long-term economic plan”? I will let hon. Members work that one out for themselves.

I know the impact of all this in my local community and on my local economy. York has a low-wage, insecure and high cost of living economy where housing is now inaccessible. We heard about the next generation being better off. With the debts that young people now carry and the difficulty in accessing housing, I was interested in the lifetime ISA, which will mean that the people who are least worse off will get £1,000, while those struggling with tax credit cuts and increased in-work poverty will feel the pinch.

I hang my head in shame at the way that disabled people are treated in the Budget. No compassion there. That takes me back to the economic picture which I worry so much about. The Chancellor has borrowed more than all Labour Chancellors put together throughout history, and wants to borrow even more now. The question is what he will do with that money. We know from our economic experts how to invest that money to lead not to a growing debt, but to growing productivity. When the Chancellor has had to cut his own growth targets twice in the past six months, from 2.4% to 2.2% and now to 2%, he is admitting that his economic plan is not working. He did not clear the deficit in the previous Parliament, and it seems that with this omnishambles Budget he will not do so in this Parliament either.

I am worried, and I am most worried about the people I represent. In six years of low productivity, their insecurity and risks are rising, the local economy in York is totally inequitable—a two-speed economy, as it is known, speeding up for those who are well off—

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

It is always good to hear from the shadow shadow Treasury team. I can tell the hon. Lady that more will be outlined in the course of this year in the autumn statement. However, we remain on course—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Members are becoming a little over-excitable. The Chief Secretary must be heard.

[Greg Hands]

We remain on course to deliver our budget surplus in 2019-20, which is far more than Labour ever achieved. I would have thought that the hon. Lady would take the opportunity to congratulate the Government on the new commitment to flood defences in Leeds, which she did not mention.

I will be working to find a further £3.5 billion of efficiencies by 2019-20 so that we deliver that surplus by the end of this Parliament. That means that we keep our economy on course, and we refuse to pass on the burden to our children and grandchildren.

At the same time, we will continue to reward aspiration, back growth, invest in education and help people get on in life—because this is a Budget that backs Britain’s businesses. It cuts the burden of business rates by £6.7 billion over the next five years, taking 600,000 of our smallest firms out of business rates altogether. It cuts the rate of corporation tax even further, to 17% in 2020, giving us the most competitive rate in the G7 and benefiting more than 1 million businesses. Through a £1 billion North sea oil and gas package, it is a Budget that helps Britain’s largest industry succeed in difficult economic times; through cuts to both the higher and basic rates of capital gains tax, it encourages investment—the lifeblood of Britain’s businesses; and, through the abolition of class 2 national insurance contributions, it creates a simpler tax system and a tax cut of more than £130 for the 3 million-plus self-employed people in Britain—this Government stand squarely behind them.

This is a Budget that puts cash into people’s pockets. It raises the tax-free personal allowance to £11,500 from next year, and the higher rate threshold to £45,000. We recognise that money should be in savings accounts as well as in pockets, so this is also the Budget that creates the lifetime ISA, helping people to buy their first home or save for their retirement. This is a Budget that freezes fuel duty, helping people every time they fill up their tank. It is a Budget that supports responsible drinkers; helps the nation’s pubs and gives a further boost to the Scotch whisky industry.

I recall seeing on the morning of the Budget the Scottish National party’s lead spokesman saying that he had three asks in this Budget, and he listed them on Twitter. They were to freeze fuel duty, to keep down duty on Scotch and to have a fiscal package for oil and gas. We have met all three of his asks and much more, and this is a very good Budget for Scotland, too.

It is a Budget that strengthens our tax base, through reforming the tax system so that it is in line with the realities of global, 21st-century economics. As I said, in this Budget we take action on the scourge of obesity, which, as well as putting unsustainable pressures on the NHS, ruins people’s health and quality of life, and costs the country about £27 billion a year.

--- Later in debate ---

(ii) so far as it is applicable to services, applies to services of every description.

[Mr Speaker]

I am now required under Standing Order No. 51(3) to put, without further debate, the Question on each of the Ways and Means motions numbered 2 to 69 on which the Bill is to be brought in, and on the motions on Procedure and Finance (Money). I should point out that motion No. 13 includes a schedule. These motions are set out in a separate paper distributed with today’s Order Paper.

I must inform the House that, for the purposes of Standing Order No. 83U, and on the basis of material put before me, I have certified that in my opinion the following founding motions published on 16 March 2016 and to be moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer relate exclusively to England, Wales and Northern Ireland and are within devolved legislative competence. I am referring, as I feel sure colleagues are keenly aware, to the following motions:

45. Stamp duty land tax (calculating tax on non-residential and mixed transactions);

46. Stamp duty land tax (higher rates for additional dwellings etc.);

47. SDLT higher rate (land purchased for commercial use);

48. SDLT higher rate (acquisition under home reversion plan);

49. SDLT higher rate (properties occupied by certain employees);

50. Stamp duty land tax (co-ownership authorised contractual schemes);

57. Landfill tax (rates); and the motion on Procedure (Future Taxation) relating to rates of landfill tax.

Any of these motions on which the House may divide will be subject to double majority voting. With the leave of the House, I will put the Question on motions 2 to 7 together.

The Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the motions made in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Standing Order No. 51(3)).

2. Income tax (charge and main rates)

Resolved,

That—

(1) Income tax is charged for the tax year 2016-17.

(2) For that tax year—

(a) the basic rate is 20%,

(b) the higher rate is 40%, and

(c) the additional rate is 45%.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

3. Dividends etc.

Resolved,

That provision may be made about distributions (within the meaning of the Tax Acts), including provision about rates of income tax on dividend income (within the meaning of the Income Tax Acts).

4. Taxable benefits (application of Chapters 5, 6 and 7 of Part 3 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003)

Resolved,

That—

(1) Part 3 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (employment income: earnings and benefits etc treated as earnings) is amended as follows.

(2) In section 97 (living accommodation to which Chapter 5 applies), after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) In determining for the purposes of this Chapter whether this Chapter applies to living accommodation provided for an individual it is immaterial whether or not the terms on which it is provided constitute a fair bargain.”

(3) In section 114 (cars, vans and related benefits to which Chapter 6 applies), after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) In determining for the purposes of this Chapter whether this Chapter applies by virtue of subsection (1) to a car or van made available to an individual it is immaterial whether or not the terms on which the car or van is made available constitute a fair bargain.”

(4) For section 117 substitute—

“117 Meaning of car or van made available by reason of employment

(1) For the purposes of this Chapter a car or van made available by an employer to an employee or member of an employee’s family or household is to be regarded as made available by reason of the employment unless subsection (2) or (3) excludes the application of this subsection.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply where—

(a) the employer is an individual, and

(b) the car or van is made available in the normal course of the employer’s domestic, family or personal relationships.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply where—

(a) the employer carries on a vehicle hire business under which cars or vans of the same kind are made available to members of the public for hire,

(b) the car or van in question is hired to the employee or member in the normal course of that business, and

(c) in hiring that car or van the employee or member is acting as an ordinary member of the public.”

(5) In section 173 (loans to which Chapter 7 applies), after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) In determining for the purposes of this Chapter whether a loan is an employment-related loan it is immaterial whether or not the terms of the loan constitute a fair bargain.”

(6) The amendments made by this Resolution have effect for the tax year 2016-17 and subsequent tax years.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

5. Taxable Benefits (diesel cars)

Resolved,

That—

(1) In section 24 of the Finance Act 2014 (cars: the appropriate percentage), omit the following (“the repealing provisions”)—

(a) subsection (2),

(b) subsection (6),

(c) subsection (10),

(d) subsection (11), and

(e) subsection (15).

(2) Any provision of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 amended or omitted by the repealing provisions has effect for the tax year 2016-17 and subsequent tax years as if the repealing provisions had not been enacted.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

6. Taxable Benefits (vans)

Resolved,

That—

(1) Section 155 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (cash equivalent of the benefit of a van) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (lB)(a), for “2019-20” substitute “2021-22”.

(3) In subsection (1C), for paragraphs (b) to (e) substitute—

“(b) 20% for the tax year 2016-17;

(c) 20% for the tax year 2017-18;

(d) 40% for the tax year 2018-19;

(e) 60% for the tax year 2019-20;

(f) 80% for the tax year 2020-21;

(g) 90% for the tax year 2021-22.”

(4) The amendments made by this Resolution have effect for the tax year 2016-17 and subsequent tax years.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

7. Income tax (exemption for trivial benefits provided by employers)

Resolved,

That—

(1) The Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 323 insert—

“323ATrivial benefits provided by employers

(1) No liability to income tax arises in respect of a benefit provided by, or on behalf of, an employer to an employee or a member of the employee’s family or household if—

(a) conditions A to D are met, or

(b) in a case where subsection (2) applies, conditions A to E are met.

(2) This subsection applies where—

(a) the employer is a close company, and

(b) the employee is—

(i) a person who is a director or other office-holder of the employer, or

(ii) a member of the family or household of such a person.

(3) Condition A is that the benefit is not cash or a cash voucher within the meaning of section 75.

(4) Condition B is that the benefit cost of the benefit does not exceed £50.

(5) In this section “benefit cost”, in relation to a benefit, means—

(a) the cost of providing the benefit, or

(b) if the benefit is provided to more than one person and the nature of the benefit or the scale of its provision means it is impracticable to calculate the cost of providing it to each person to whom it is provided, the average cost per person of providing the benefit.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (5)(b), the average cost per person of providing a benefit is found by dividing the total cost of providing the benefit by the number of persons to whom the benefit is provided.

(7) Condition C is that the benefit is not provided pursuant to relevant salary sacrifice arrangements or any other contractual obligation.

(8) “Relevant salary sacrifice arrangements”, in relation to the provision of a benefit to an employee or to a member of an employee’s family or household, means arrangements (whenever made, whether before or after the employment began) under which the employee gives up the right to receive an amount of general earnings or specific employment income in return for the provision of the benefit.

(9) Condition D is that the benefit is not provided in recognition of particular services performed by the employee in the course of the employment or in anticipation of such services.

(10) Condition E is that—

(a) the benefit cost of the benefit provided to the employee, or

(b) in a case where the benefit is provided to a member of the employee’s family or household who is not an employee of the employer, the amount of the benefit cost allocated to the employee in accordance with section 323B(4),

does not exceed the employee’s available exempt amount (see section 323B).

323B Section 323A: calculation of available exempt amount

(1) The “available exempt amount”, in relation to an employee of an employer, is the amount found by deducting from the annual exempt amount the aggregate of—

(a) the benefit cost of eligible benefits provided earlier in the tax year by, or on behalf of, the employer to the employee, and

(b) any amounts allocated to the employee in accordance with subsection (4) in respect of eligible benefits provided earlier in the tax year by, or on behalf of, the employer to a member of the employee’s family or household who was not at that time an employee of the employer.

(2) The annual exempt amount is £300.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) “eligible benefits” means benefits in respect of which conditions A to D in section 323A are met.

(4) The amount allocated to an employee of an employer in respect of a benefit provided to a person (“P”) who—

(a) is a member of the employee’s family or household, and

(b) is not an employee of the employer,

is the benefit cost of that benefit divided by the number of persons who meet the condition in subsection (5) and are members of P’s family or household.

(5) This condition is met if the person is—

(a) a director or other office-holder of the employer,

(b) an employee of the employer who is a member of the family or household of a person within paragraph (a), or

(c) a former employee of the employer who—

(i) was a director or other office-holder at any time when the employer was a close company, or

(ii) is a member of the family or household of such a person.

(6) In this section “benefit cost” has the same meaning as in section 323A.”

(3) The amendment made by this Resolution has effect for the tax year 2016-17 and subsequent tax years.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

8. Travel expenses of workers providing services through intermediaries

Question put,

That—

(1) In Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (deductions for employee’s expenses), after section 339 insert—

“339A Travel for necessary attendance: employment intermediaries

(1) This section applies where an individual (“the worker”)—

(a) personally provides services (which are not excluded services) to another person (“the client”), and

(b) the services are provided not under a contract directly between the client or a person connected with the client and the worker but under arrangements involving an employment intermediary.

This is subject to the following provisions of this section.

(2) Where this section applies, each engagement is for the purposes of sections 338 and 339 to be regarded as a separate employment.

(3) This section does not apply if it is shown that the manner in which the worker provides the services is not subject to (or to the right of) supervision, direction or control by any person.

(4) Subsection (3) does not apply in relation to an engagement if—

(a) Chapter 8 of Part 2 applies in relation to the engagement,

(b) the conditions in section 51, 52 or 53 are met in relation to the employment intermediary, and

(c) the employment intermediary is not a managed service company.

(5) This section does not apply in relation to an engagement if—

(a) Chapter 8 of Part 2 does not apply in relation to the engagement merely because the circumstances in section 49(1)(c) are not met,

(b) assuming those circumstances were met, the conditions in section 51,52 or 53 would be met in relation to the employment intermediary, and

(c) the employment intermediary is not a managed service company.

(6) In determining for the purposes of subsection (4) or (5) whether the conditions in section 51, 52 or 53 are or would be met in relation to the employment intermediary—

(a) in section 50(l)(b), disregard the words “that is not employment income”, and

(b) read references to the intermediary as references to the employment intermediary.

(7) Subsection (8) applies if—

(a) the client or a relevant person provides the employment intermediary (whether before or after the worker begins to provide the services) with a fraudulent document which is intended to constitute evidence that, by virtue of subsection (3), this section does not or will not apply in relation to the services,

(b) that section is taken not to apply in relation to the services, and

(c) in consequence, the employment intermediary does not under PAYE regulations deduct and account for an amount that would have been deducted and accounted for under those regulations if this section had been taken to apply in relation to the services.

(8) For the purpose of recovering the amount referred to in subsection (7)(c)(“the unpaid tax”)—

(a) the worker is to be treated as having an employment with the client or relevant person who provided the document, the duties of which consist of the services, and

(b) the client or relevant person is under PAYE regulations to account for the unpaid tax as if it arose in respect of earnings from that employment.

(9) In subsections (7) and (8) “relevant person” means a person, other than the client, the worker or a person connected with the employment intermediary, who—

(a) is resident, or has a place of business, in the United Kingdom, and

(b) is party to a contract with the employment intermediary or a person connected with the employment intermediary under or in consequence of which—

(i) the services are provided, or

(ii) the employment intermediary, or a person connected with the employment intermediary, makes payments in respect of the services.

(10) In determining whether this section applies, no regard is to be had to any arrangements the main purpose, or one of the main purposes, of which is to secure that this section does not to any extent apply.

(11) In this section—

“arrangements” includes any scheme, transaction or series of transactions, agreement or understanding, whether or not enforceable, and any associated operations;

“employment intermediary” means a person, other than the worker or the client, who carries on a business (whether or not with a view to profit and whether or not in conjunction with any other business) of supplying labour;

“engagement” means any such provision of service as is

mentioned in subsection (l)(a);

“excluded services” means services provided wholly in the client’s home;

“managed service company” means a company which—

(a) is a managed service company within the meaning given by section 61B, or

(b) would be such a company disregarding subsection (l)(c) of that section.”

(2) In section 688A of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (managed service companies: recovery from other persons), in subsection (5), in the definition of “managed service company”, after “section 61B” insert “but for the purposes of section 339A has the meaning given by subsection (11) of that section”.

(3) After section 688A of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 insert—

“688B Travel expenses of workers providing services through intermediaries: recovery of unpaid tax

(1) PAYE regulations may make provision for, or in connection with, the recovery from a director or officer of a company, in such circumstances as may be specified in the regulations, of amounts within any of subsections (2) to (5).

(2) An amount within this subsection is an amount that the company is to account for in accordance with PAYE regulations by virtue of section 339A(7) to (9) (persons providing fraudulent documents).

(3) An amount within this subsection is an amount which the company is to deduct and pay in accordance with PAYE regulations by virtue of section 339A in circumstances where—

(a) the company is an employment intermediary,

(b) on the basis that section 339A does not apply by virtue of subsection (3) of that section, the company has not deducted and paid the amount, but

(c) the company has not been provided by any other person with evidence from which it would be reasonable in all the circumstances to conclude that subsection (3) of that section applied (and the mere assertion by a person that the manner in which the worker provided the services was not subject to (or to the right of) supervision, direction or control by any person is not such evidence).

(4) An amount within this subsection is an amount that the company is to deduct and pay in accordance with PAYE regulations by virtue of section 339A in a case where subsection (4) of that section applies, (services provided under arrangements made by intermediaries).

(5) An amount within this subsection is any interest or penalty in respect of an amount within any of subsections (2) to (4) for which the company is liable.

(6) In this section—

“company” includes a limited liability partnership;

“director” has the meaning given by section 67;

“employment intermediary” has the same meaning as in section 339A;

“officer”, in relation to a company, means any manager, secretary or other similar officer of the company, or any person acting or purporting to act as such.”

(4) In Part 4 of the Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/2682) (payments, returns and information), after Chapter 3A insert—

“Chapter 3B

Certain debts of companies under section 339a of ITEPA (travel expenses of workers providing services through employment intermediaries)

97ZG Interpretation of Chapter 3B: “relevant PAYE debt” and “relevant date”

(1) In this Chapter “relevant PAYE debt”, in relation to a company means an amount within any of paragraphs (2) to (5).

(2) An amount within this paragraph is an amount that the company is to account for in accordance with these Regulations by virtue of section 339A(7) to (9) of ITEPA (persons providing fraudulent documents).

(3) An amount within this paragraph is an amount which a company is to deduct and pay in accordance with these Regulations by virtue of section 339A of ITEPA in circumstances where—

(a) the company is an employment intermediary,

(b) on the basis that section 339A of ITEPA does not apply by virtue of subsection (3) of that section the company has not deducted and paid the amount, but

(c) the company has not been provided by any other person with evidence from which it would be reasonable in all the circumstances to conclude that subsection (3) of that section applied (and the mere assertion by a person that the manner in which the worker provided the services was not subject to (or to the right of) supervision, direction or control by any person is not such evidence).

(4) An amount within this paragraph is an amount that the company is to deduct and pay in accordance with these Regulations by virtue of section 339A of ITEPA in a case where subsection (4) of that section applies (services provided under arrangements made by intermediaries).

(5) An amount within this paragraph is any interest or penalty in respect of an amount within any of paragraphs (2) to (4) for which the company is liable.

(6) In this Chapter “the relevant date” in relation to a relevant PAYE debt means the date on which the first payment is due on which PAYE is not accounted for.

97ZH Interpretation of Chapter 3B: general

In this Chapter—

“company” includes a limited liability partnership;

“director” has the meaning given by section 67 of ITEPA; “personal liability notice” has the meaning given by regulation 97ZI(2);

“the specified amount” has the meaning given by regulation 97ZI(2)(a).

97ZI Liability of directors for relevant PAYE debts

(1) This regulation applies in relation to an amount of relevant PAYE debt of a company if the company does not deduct that amount by the time by which the company is required to do so.

(2) HMRC may serve a notice (a “personal liability notice”) on any person who was, on the relevant date, a director of the company—

(a) specifying the amount of relevant PAYE debt in relation to which this regulation applies (“the specified amount”), and

(b) requiring the director to pay to HMRC—

(i) the specified amount, and

(ii) specified interest on that amount.

(3) The interest specified in the personal liability notice—

(a) is to be at the rate applicable under section 178 of the Finance Act 1989 for the purposes of section 86 of TMA, and

(b) is to run from the date the notice is served.

(4) A director who is served with a personal liability notice is liable to pay to HMRC the specified amount and the interest specified in the notice within 30 days beginning with the day the notice is served.

(5) If HMRC serve personal liability notices on more than one director of the company in respect of the same amount of relevant PAYE debt, the directors are jointly and severally liable to pay to HMRC the specified amount and the interest specified in the notices.

97ZJ Appeals in relation to personal liability notices

(1) A person who is served with a personal liability notice in relation to an amount of relevant PAYE debt of a company may appeal against the notice.

(2) A notice of appeal must—

(a) be given to HMRC within 30 days beginning with the day the personal liability notice is served, and

(b) specify the grounds of the appeal.

(3) The grounds of appeal are—

(a) that all or part of the specified amount does not represent an amount of relevant PAYE debt, of the company, to which regulation 97ZI applies, or

(b) that the person was not a director of the company on the relevant date.

(4) But a person may not appeal on the ground mentioned in paragraph (3)(a) if it has already been determined, on an appeal by the company, that—

(a) the specified amount is a relevant PAYE debt of the company, and

(b) the company did not deduct, account for, or (as the case may be) pay the debt by the time by which the company was required to do so.

(5) Subject to paragraph (6), on an appeal that is notified to the tribunal, the tribunal is to uphold or quash the personal liability notice.

(6) In a case in which the ground of appeal mentioned in paragraph (3)(a) is raised, the tribunal may also reduce or increase the specified amount so that it does represent an amount of relevant PAYE debt, of the company, to which regulation 97ZI applies.

97ZK Withdrawal of personal liability notices

(1) A personal liability notice is withdrawn if the tribunal quashes it.

(2) An officer of Revenue and Customs may withdraw a personal liability notice if the officer considers it appropriate to do so.

(3) If a personal liability notice is withdrawn, HMRC must give notice of that fact to the person upon whom the notice was served.

97ZL Recovery of sums due under personal liability notice: application of Part 6 of TMA

(1) For the purposes of this Chapter, Part 6 of TMA (collection and recovery) applies as if—

(a) the personal liability notice were an assessment, and

(b) the specified amount, and any interest on that amount under regulation 97ZI(2)(b)(ii), were income tax charged on the director upon whom the notice is served,

and that Part of that Act applies with the modification in paragraph (2) and any other necessary modifications.

(2) Summary proceedings for the recovery of the specified amount, and any interest on that amount under regulation 97ZI(2)(b)(ii), may be brought in England and Wales or Northern Ireland at any time before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day after the day on which the personal liability notice is served.

97ZM Repayment of surplus amounts

(1) This regulation applies if—

(a) one or more personal liability notices are served in respect of an amount of relevant PAYE debt of a company, and

(b) the amounts paid to HMRC (whether by directors upon whom notices are served or the company) exceed the aggregate of the specified amount and any interest on it under regulation 97ZI(2)(b)(ii).

(2) HMRC is to repay the difference on a just and equitable basis and without unreasonable delay.

(3) HMRC is to pay interest on any sum repaid.

(4) The interest—

(a) is to be at the rate applicable under section 178 of the Finance Act 1989 for the purposes of section 824 of ICTA, and

(b) is to run from the date the amounts paid to HMRC come to exceed the aggregate mentioned in subsection (l)(b).”

(5) The amendment made by paragraph (4) is to be treated as having been made by the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in exercise of the power conferred by section 688B of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (inserted by paragraph (3)).

(6) The amendment made by paragraph (1) has effect in relation to the tax year 2016-17 and subsequent tax years.

(7) The amendment made by paragraph (4) has effect in relation to relevant PAYE debts that are to be deducted, accounted for or paid on or after 6 April 2016.

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.