Draft Money Laundering and Transfer of Funds (Information) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2019 General Committees

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. May I wish everyone on the Committee a happy new year?

Once again, I must say that it feels a little like groundhog day: we are here again to discuss a Treasury statutory instrument that would make provisions for the financial regulatory framework after Brexit in the event that we crash out without a deal. On each such occasion, my Labour Front-Bench colleagues and I have spelled out our objections to secondary legislation being used in this manner, as well as the challenges of ensuring proper scrutiny of the sheer volume of legislation that passes through Delegated Legislation Committees. We have expressed many times our frustration about having to spend time and resources creating a framework that might never be used, and about the public money that has been spent on planning for what should not be viewed as a potential eventuality.

Because of the dangerous game now being played, statutory instruments considered by Committees such as this may not disappear into the ether on 29 March. They could represent real and substantive changes to the statute book, so they need proper and in-depth scrutiny. Equally, we must bear in mind the stress that financial markets would be under in the scenario that the Government allowed such a situation to materialise. Such instruments must be considered through that lens.

The draft regulations follow on from the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. I do not want to rerun the many issues of contention that were debated during the passage of that Act, but I think a few significant points that relate to the draft regulations bear further scrutiny, and I hope the Minister will respond to them.

First, it would be helpful to have further information about how the FCA will assess equivalence of third countries’ legislation, compared with that of EU countries, following the fourth money laundering directive. Will it use the Commission’s list initially and then expand or contract it in the future? If so, what methodology and resources will be used to undertake that? Such a process could obviously be very resource-intensive—a point that I shall come back to later.

Secondly, and relatedly, the existing legislation refers to the Commission’s high-risk third country list. The draft regulations would onshore the EU list as of exit day and then commit the UK to updating the list. I understand from debates in the other place that that would be undertaken via the affirmative procedure for reasons of speed.

Has the Government’s thinking developed on enabling parliamentary scrutiny of changes to that list? Clearly, there is a need for speed, but that surely has to be balanced with appropriate oversight. As with sanctions policy, it would surely make sense to co-ordinate this with the EU, even if it is not done formally, given the potential resource implications of having to research many different jurisdictions speedily. We do not have an indication in the accompanying notes of how that process would occur.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I was going to ask a question in a similar vein about the high-risk countries. I would have less concern if the same list as the EU was used on day one. However, looking for comfort in the future, if the list is going to be changed, and particularly if it will diverge from the EU’s list, parliamentary scrutiny should be brought to bear on that.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. We have seen a lot of contention around the definition of which countries go on the list. There have been criticisms, even at EU level, of how transparent or otherwise that process has been for countries going on or coming off the list. It is therefore important that we get it right if we end up adopting this process in the UK. We need to make sure that it is fully transparent and accountable. It can have a significant impact on the jurisdictions that are affected, so I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point.

Thirdly, I hope the Government will make clear what our co-operation with the EU on anti-money laundering efforts will look like in the future. Currently, we only seem to have the ubiquitous phrase that on this issue the Government are seeking a “deep and special” future relationship with the EU. The Minister provided us with a little more in his comments, saying that we would continue to engage with international processes—I am sorry I did not catch his exact wording.

We need more detail on this. That is important, given the current developments with the recast of the EU’s anti-money laundering machinery, including its decision to implement more transparency for trusts. The UK’s trust register, as I understand it, is not yet complete and it is not publicly available, even to the limited extent that is proposed in the reform of the anti-money laundering regime. That reform would cover business-like trusts and enable their beneficial owners—or the people who would benefit from their proceeds—to be viewable by those who could prove a legitimate interest in knowing about them, for example journalists as well as law enforcement agencies. That would go beyond the UK regime. It would be helpful to know how we, as a nation, envisage co-ordinating with that process.

We also need more information, given the continuing role of UK-based structures in facilitating hidden transactions. I was astonished to see, in response to a parliamentary question I tabled, that the Government’s loudly promoted crackdown on Scottish limited partnerships has been anything but. In October 2018, there were no less than 3,542 SLPs that said they could not reveal ownership information—which is, of course, now required by law—because of their own failure to obtain that information, and more than 600 that said they could not provide it because, despite knowing who their people of significant control were, they had not been able to collect the required particulars from them. Those figures had only reduced by almost a third and 12% respectively over the previous year, so there really has not been a crackdown in this area, despite what was promised. That is problematic, particularly when other countries are looking nervously at what is happening in relation to these shell companies in our jurisdiction, including EU countries.

Fourthly, I am unclear about one element of drafting. Regulation 8(b)(i) changes an emphatic “must” to a weak “may”, to coin a phrase—I am sorry, I could not help myself. Specifically, the amended regulations will state that the commissioners—HMRC—may, rather than must,

“make arrangements to ensure that the NCA are able to use information on the register to respond promptly to a request for information about the persons referred to in”

different regulations. It is not clear to me why that change has occurred. It seems to weaken the language and there is no explanation of it in the memorandum. Surely the parameters for such co-ordination are critical, especially in a context in which we lack any indication from the Government of when they will introduce their promised offence of failure to prevent economic crime, despite the consultation on the subject having ended many months ago.

Fifthly, and perhaps most substantially, there is—as with so many recent statutory instruments—a question about resourcing. Regulation 5(3)(b) grants the FCA the power to make further technical standards relating to the area. FCA funding has been increased by £5 million to cover withdrawal work, but as far as I can see, that is just to aid the transition; there does not seem to be any commitment to maintain increased funding to allow it to use the new powers that it has been given via such instruments. The FCA’s annual business plan includes the following statement about EU withdrawal:

“Although our Annual Funding Requirement has increased by £5m to cover EU Withdrawal work, we have still made difficult and challenging decisions about our priority activities across all business areas that are not related to work on EU Withdrawal, including limiting the number of new initiatives we’ve taken on. We recognise the particular significance of EU Withdrawal on wholesale financial markets, investment management and the general insurance sectors, and our decisions have been driven by our recognition of the capacity of industry to absorb change.”

Just yesterday, I discussed with the Thames Valley police and crime commissioner his concerns about resourcing for the FCA with respect to adequately identifying and prosecuting fraud—not an area that is covered by the EU withdrawal process, but one that needs to be provided for appropriately. There still seems to be a lack of recognition from the Government about the impact of this SI and others on the FCA’s existing work programme. The FCA’s activity was criticised in FATF’s assessment last month for having cited only eight firms and collected just £254 million in penalties for anti-money laundering violations over the past five years. The Minister mentioned OPBAS; I am sure that he will be aware that the supervision of professions, which was meant to be tightened up, streamlined and made more coherent through OPBAS, was another area criticised in FATF’s assessment.

Interestingly, the draft regulations make no mention of the National Crime Agency, despite concerns expressed in the FATF report about the lack of resources for the NCA, particularly its financial intelligence unit. The Committee may be aware that there has been considerable debate in the specialist press about whether the UK’s glowing assessment by FATF was warranted, particularly given the lack of action to better resource the NCA—an issue highlighted in FATF’s last evaluation in 2007, which stated that

“the UK financial intelligence unit needs a substantial increase in its resources and the suspicious activity reporting regime needs to be modernised and reformed.”

FATF also flagged continuing problems with the lack of verification of data on the Companies House register, a subject that I have repeatedly raised in the House. Because of the FIU’s lack of resources, FATF concluded that it

“misses the opportunity to search for criminal activity that might otherwise be missed by”

investigators who

“mine the SARs database for issues linked to their own geographical or operational remits.”

I understand that the UK assigns only nine employees to analyse hundreds of thousands of suspicious activity reports, or SARs, each year.

Back in 2007, the UK pledged that it would significantly increase the staffing level of the FIU to 200, but press reports from last October suggested that it has only 80 full-time employees and that the unit has actually lost one in five of its staff over the past 11 years. Apparently, the Government have committed to increasing staffing in this area, so it would be enormously helpful if the Minister provided some assurances on that score. It is not just the FCA that works on money-laundering issues, but the FIU in the NCA, so we need to know that it will be adequately resourced.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

It is a pleasure to respond to the hon. Members for Oxford East and for Aberdeen North, who raised a series of thoughtful questions. I have to say at the outset that the draft regulations are about creating the functioning regime that we will need in a no-deal situation. A whole range of points that were raised were discussed during the passage of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, but I will seek to respond to them.

The hon. Member for Oxford East raised concerns about the EU’s high-risk third country list. I can confirm that we will use the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act to update the high-risk register. We will use the affirmative procedure, which will enable Parliament to vote on any changes. International standards will be considered as part of any updates.

The hon. Lady also raised the Financial Action Task Force and its recommendations, and I will come on to some of those around the resourcing of the FIU. However, it is important for the Committee to understand that the comprehensive review of the UK regime that took place last year, which is done on a 10-year basis, judged the UK to be in the best state of all 60 countries that have been evaluated. However, I acknowledge that there are pieces of work that need to be undertaken to improve it.

There has been an 80% reduction in Scottish limited partnerships.[Official Report, 17 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 9MC.] The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which leads on this area, published a report in December that set out a series of elements, including tighter regulation, the need for a firmer connection to the UK, increased transparency of information and giving the registrar the power to strike off dormant partnerships. I accept that there is work to be done, but progress is being made.

The hon. Members for Oxford East and for Aberdeen North raised the issue of co-operation with the EU. Paragraph 84 of the political declaration explicitly sets out that the UK and the EU should co-operate on anti-money laundering. I am not able to give chapter and verse on specific mechanisms, but it is important to remind the Committee that the UK is known as a world leader in setting the agenda in this area and it is inconceivable that the Government would not wish to continue to take a lead in driving forward these standards.

Obviously in a no-deal scenario, work would have to take place to establish how the FCA’s relationship with the EU would work, in the context of a thorough and holistic piece of legislation on financial services. The Treasury, working across Government with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, takes its responsibilities in this area very seriously. I gave evidence to the Treasury Committee’s inquiry on economic crime and we look forward to its report, which will guide us and to which we will respond.

The Home Office leads on the resourcing of the FIU and the SARs reform work, so I am not able to give a detailed answer, but shall write to the hon. Member for Oxford East.

[Anneliese Dodds]

Would the Minister mind also writing to me to indicate when the Government will release their response to the consultation on creating an offence of failure to prevent economic crime?

[John Glen]

I would be happy to respond on that matter as well.

A point that often comes up in these discussions is the resourcing of the FCA. I acknowledge the great work that it has done over the last 18 months in helping the Government to prepare these SIs. It is funded by an industry levy and has set out in its business plan the resources involved in working towards exit. The Government are confident that the FCA has made adequate preparations ahead of leaving. If additional resources are needed in the event of no deal, it would be able to raise those funds very quickly, but we would all be in a situation where we would have to do things that we had not anticipated. This programme of SIs is about getting to the basic starting point that allows us to have confidence in the regulatory regime, but I do not deny that a considerable amount of work would need to take place.

On maintenance of standards and equivalence with the EU on anti-money laundering, the hon. Member for Oxford East discussed the use of the word “may” versus “must”. I want to clarify that what we have removed is the obligation to report in a specific way, as per the legislation. It is not our intention to remove ourselves from either the spirit or substance of that obligation; it is just that it would be inappropriate to leave a legal obligation to an entity when we are a third party. That is the only way that I can describe it.

To expand further on future co-operation, through the bilateral agreement with the EU, we expect to have an expansive relationship that would have a wide scope of cross-border activity. The changes in the SIs do not preclude deep co-operation between UK and EU regulators in the future. It is desirable to have that co-operation.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North raised the burden on banks’ IT systems. When one makes a transfer between one bank and another, if it is in an unfamiliar, non-mainstream destination in Africa—I will not name an individual country for fear of getting a letter from its ambassador—some checks would be done, because the bank would then obviously receive those funds. A check would be done on that, but because that sort of transaction is inherently risky, the same degree of checking will need to take place—and does take place in practice in the banking industry—with countries in the EU that are more familiar to us. Broadly, there is harmony on that matter anyway.

I mentioned the SARs reform, which the Home Office leads on. We anticipate that new IT will provide a more user-friendly portal for reporters from all sectors and that improved data processing, storage, analytics and distribution will be required. Work is being done across the Treasury, the Home Office and the MOJ to look at how we can refine that.[Official Report, 17 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 10MC.] At the moment, the basic problem is that there is a high volume of SARs and we could better interrogate that data pool.

The hon. Member for Oxford East mentioned the concerns raised by the Thames Valley police and crime commissioner. He has also raised them with me and I will get in touch with him about them. Obviously, we do not rest on our laurels with respect to the FATF evaluation. I have mentioned the concerns that the Government have acknowledged in terms of the FIU, and the improvements to SARs and to the Companies House register, on which we expect a Government report in Q1 or Q2 of this year.

The statutory instrument is needed to ensure that the UK’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regime operates effectively and that the legislation functions appropriately if the UK leaves without a deal. I hope that I have adequately responded to the points raised.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman arrogates to me almost superhuman powers if he thinks that I can advise the media upon the imperative of first checking facts before printing a story. I appreciate his confidence in me, but I fear that he has an assessment of my capabilities that is sadly unmatched by the reality. Nevertheless, he has put his point on the record, and doubtless he will circulate it more widely amongst the people of Nuneaton.

New Clause 2

Review of the effectiveness of entrepreneurs’ relief

“(1) Within twelve months of the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effectiveness of the changes made to entrepreneurs’ relief by Schedule 15, against the stated policy aims of that relief.

(2) A review under this section must consider—

(a) the overall number of entrepreneurs in the UK,

(b) the annual cost of entrepreneurs’ relief,

(c) the annual number of claimants per year,

(d) the average cost of relief paid per claim, and

(e) the impact on productivity in the UK economy.”—(Anneliese Dodds.)

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effectiveness of the changes made to entrepreneurs’ relief by Schedule 15.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 9—Review of changes to entrepreneurs’ relief—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the impact on investment in parts of the United Kingdom and regions of England of the changes made to entrepreneur’s relief by Schedule 15 to this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) A review under this section must consider—

(a) the effects of the provisions on business investment,

(b) the effects of the provisions on employment, and

(c) the effects of the provisions on productivity.

(3) In this section—

“parts of the United Kingdom” means—

(a) England,

(b) Scotland,

(c) Wales, and

(d) Northern Ireland;

“regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.”

This new clause would require a review of the impact on investment of the changes made to entrepreneurs’ relief which extend the minimum qualifying period from 12 months to 2 years.

New clause 10—Review of geographical effects of provisions of section 9—

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the differential geographical effects of the changes made by section 9 and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”

This new clause would require a geographical impact assessment of income tax exemptions relating to private use of an emergency vehicle.

New clause 16—Personal allowance—

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, no later than 5 April 2019, lay before the House of Commons an analysis of the distributional and other effects of a personal allowance in 2019-20 of £12,750.”

This new clause would require a distributional analysis of increasing the personal allowance to £12,750.

New clause 17—Review of changes to capital allowances—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effect of the changes to capital allowances in sections 29 to 34 and Schedule 12 in each part of the United Kingdom and each region of England and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) A review under this section must consider the effects of the changes on—

(a) business investment,

(b) employment, and

(c) productivity.

(3) The review must also estimate the effects on the changes if—

(a) the UK leaves the European Union without a negotiated withdrawal agreement

(b) the UK leaves the European Union following a negotiated withdrawal agreement, and remains in the single market and customs union, or

(c) the UK leaves the European Union following a negotiated withdrawal agreement, and does not remain in the single market and customs union.

(4) In this section—

“parts of the United Kingdom” means—

(a) England,

(b) Scotland,

(c) Wales, and

(d) Northern Ireland;

“regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.”

This new clause would require a review of the impact on investment, employment and productivity of the changes to capital allowance in the event of: Brexit with no deal; Brexit with single market and customs union membership; Brexit without single market and customs union membership.

New clause 24—Review of changes to capital allowances (No. 2)—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects of the changes made by sections 29 and 30 of this Act within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) A review under this section must include an assessment of—

(a) the cost to the Exchequer of these changes,

(b) changes to business behaviour that are likely to arise as result from these changes, including (but not limited to) levels of business investment in buildings, plant and machinery, and

(c) the impact of these changes on businesses in regions of England.

(3) A review under this section must compare these assessments, so far as practicable, with an assessment of the impact of replacing non-domestic rates in England with a tax on the value of commercial land.

(4) In this section, “regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office of National Statistics.”

This new clause would require the Government to assess the effects on businesses and the public finances of new capital reliefs introduced by this Act and require the Government to compare these reliefs with replacing business rates with a tax on commercial land values.

Amendment 12, in clause 5, page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (4)

This amendment would delete provisions removing the legal link between the personal allowance and the national minimum wage.

Government amendment 2.

Amendment 34, in schedule 15, page 297, line 42, leave out “29 October 2018” and insert “6 April 2019”.

Amendment 34, along with Amendment 35, would remove the retrospective effect of the new qualifying conditions for entrepreneurs relief.

Government amendment 3.

Amendment 35, in schedule 15, page 298, line 10, at end insert—

“(6) In relation to disposals on or after 29 October 2018, the amendments made by this Schedule to the definition of “personal company” do not apply in relation to any day before 29 October 2018.”

See Amendment 34.

New clause 4—Review of late payment interest rates in respect of promoters of tax avoidance schemes—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the viability of increasing any relevant interest rate charged by virtue of the specified provisions on the late payment of penalties for the promoters of tax avoidance schemes to 6.1% per annum and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) In this section, “the specified provisions” means—

(a) section 178 of FA 1989, and

(b) sections 101 to 103 of FA 2009.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the viability of increasing interest rates on the late payment of penalties for the promoters of tax avoidance schemes to 6.1%.

New clause 15—Report on consultation on certain provisions of this Act (No. 4)—

“(1) No later than two months after the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a report on the consultation undertaken on the provisions in subsection (2).

(2) Those provisions are—

(a) section 15 and Schedule 3,

(b) section 16 and Schedule 4,

(c) sections 19 and 20,

(d) section 22 and Schedule 7,

(e) section 23 and Schedule 8,

(f) sections 46 and 47,

(g) section 83.

(3) A report under this section must specify in respect of each provision listed in subsection (2)—

(a) whether a version of the provision was published in draft,

(b) if so, whether changes were made as a result of consultation on the draft, (c) if not, the reasons why the provision was not published in draft and any consultation which took place on the proposed provision in the absence of such a draft.”

This new clause would require a report on the consultation undertaken on certain provisions of the Bill – alongside New Clause 11, New Clause 13 and New Clause 14.

Government new clause 6—Intangible fixed assets: restrictions on goodwill and certain other assets.

New clause 8—Review of changes to Oil activities and petroleum revenue tax—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effect of the changes to Oil activities and petroleum revenue tax in sections 36 and 37 and Schedule 14 in Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) A review under this section must consider the effects of the changes on—

(a) business investment,

(b) employment, and

(c) productivity.”

This new clause would require the Government to review and publish a report on the investment, employment and productivity impact of the Bill’s fiscal measures on the North Sea sector.

New clause 11—Report on consultation on certain provisions of this Act—

“(1) No later than two months after the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a report on the consultation undertaken on the provisions in subsection (2).

(2) Those provisions are—

(a) section 5,

(b) section 6,

(c) section 8,

(d) section 9,

(e) section 10,

(f) Schedule 15,

(g) section 39,

(h) section 40,

(i) section 41, and

(j) section 42.

(3) A report under this section must specify in respect of each provision listed in subsection (2)—

(a) whether a version of the provision was published in draft,

(b) if so, whether changes were made as a result of consultation on the draft, and

(c) if not, the reasons why the provision was not published in draft and any consultation which took place on the proposed provision in the absence of such a draft.”

This new clause would require a report on the consultation undertaken on certain provisions of the Bill – alongside New Clause 13, New Clause 14 and New Clause 15.

New clause 14—Report on consultation on certain provisions of this Act (No. 3)—

“(1) No later than two months after the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a report on the consultation undertaken on the provisions in subsection (2).

(2) Those provisions are—

(a) section 61, and

(b) Schedule 18.

(3) A report under this section must specify in respect of each provision listed in subsection (2)—

(a) whether a version of the provision was published in draft,

(b) if so, whether changes were made as a result of consultation on the draft,

(c) if not, the reasons why the provision was not published in draft and any consultation which took place on the proposed provision in the absence of such a draft.”

This new clause would require a report on the consultation undertaken on certain provisions of the Bill – alongside New Clause 11, New Clause 13 and New Clause 15.

New clause 23—Review of income tax revenue—

“(1) The Office for Budget Responsibility must review the revenue raised by income tax within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) A review under this section must consider revenue raised by—

(a) the rates of income tax specified in sections 3 and 4, combined with

(b) the basic rate limit and personal allowance specified in section 5.

(3) A review under this section must also consider the effect on revenue of—

(a) raising each of the rates of income tax specified in sections 3 and 4 by one percentage point, and

(b) setting the basic rate limit for the tax years 2019-20 and 2020-21 at £33,850.

(4) A review under this section must also include a distributional analysis of the effect of introducing the policies specified in paragraphs (3)(a) and (3)(b).

(5) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons the report of the review under this section as soon as practicable after its completion.”

This new clause would require the OBR to estimate how much money would be raised by increasing all rates of income tax by 1p and freezing the higher rate threshold.

New clause 26—Review of changes made by sections 79 and 80—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects of the changes made by sections 79 and 80 to TMA 1970, and lay a report on that review before the House of Commons not later than 30 March 2019.

(2) The review under this section must include a comparison of the time limit on proceedings for the recovery of lost tax that involves an offshore matter with other time limits on proceedings for the recovery of lost tax, including, but not limited to, those provided for by Schedules 11 and 12 to the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017.

(3) The review under this section must also consider the extent to which provisions equivalent to section 36A(7)(b) of TMA 1970 (relating to reasonable expectations) apply to the application of other time limits.”

This new clause would require the Treasury to review the effect of the changes made by sections 79 and 80 and compare them with other legislation relating to the recovery of lost tax including specifically the loan charge provisions of Schedules 11 and 12 to the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017.

Government new schedule 1—Intangible fixed assets: restrictions on goodwill and certain other assets.

Government amendments 4 to 6.

Amendment 22, in clause 53, page 34, line 14, at end insert—

“(5) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expected effects on public health of the changes made to the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 by this section and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within one year of the passing of this Act.”

This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the impact of the revised rates on cider and wine on public health.

Amendment 23, in clause 60, page 44, line 17, at end insert—

“(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects of a reduction in air passenger duty rates from 1 April 2020 and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(4) A review under subsection (3) must in consider the effects of a reduction on—

(a) airlines,

(b) airport operators,

(c) other businesses, and

(d) passengers.”

This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effects of a reduction in air passenger duty.

Amendment 36, in clause 79, page 52, line 24, leave out “12 years” and insert “8 years”.

Amendments 36 to 45 would reduce the time limits HMRC have to make an assessment of income tax or capital gains tax (Clause 79) and inheritance tax (Clause 80) to eight years, rather than 12 years, where there is non-deliberate offshore tax non-compliance.

Amendment 37, page 52, line 27, at end insert—

“(2A) Where the loss of tax is brought about carelessly by the taxpayer, an assessment may be made at any time not more than 12 years after the end of the year of assessment to which the lost tax relates. This is subject to section 36(1A) above and any other provision of the Taxes Acts allowing a longer period.”

See Amendment 36.

Amendment 38, page 53, line 22, after “(2)” insert “or (2A)”.

See Amendment 36.

Amendment 39, page 53, line 28, at end insert—

“(7A) An assessment may also not be made under subsection (2) or (2A) if—

(a) before the time limit that would otherwise apply for making the assessment, information is made available to HMRC by the taxpayer on the basis of which HMRC could reasonably have been expected to become aware of the lost tax, and

(b) it was reasonable to expect the assessment to be made before that time limit.”

See Amendment 36.

Amendment 40, page 53, line 34, at end insert—

“(8A) Subsection (7A) will not apply in cases where the taxpayer is subsequently found to have failed to provide all relevant information available to HMRC, or to have provided misleading information.

(8B) For the purposes of subsection (7A), whether information has been made available to HMRC is to be determined in line with section 29(6) above.”

See Amendment 36.

Amendment 41, page 53, line 35, after “(2)” insert “or (2A)”.

See Amendment 36.

Amendment 25, page 54, line 1, leave out “2013-14” and insert “2019-20”.

This amendment, alongside Amendment 26, would mean that new section 36A of the Taxes Management Act 1970 did not apply retrospectively.

Amendment 26, page 54, line 5, leave out “2015-16” and insert “2019-20”.

This amendment, alongside Amendment 25, would mean that new section 36A of the Taxes Management Act 1970 did not apply retrospectively.

Amendment 42, in clause 80, page 54, line 19, leave out “12 years” and insert “8 years”.

See Amendment 36.

Amendment 43, page 54, line 20, at end insert—

“(2A) Where the loss of tax is brought about carelessly by a person liable for the tax (or a person acting on behalf of such a person), proceedings for the recovery of the lost tax may be brought at any time not more than 12 years after the later of the dates in section 240(2)(a) and (b).”

See Amendment 36.

Amendment 44, page 55, line 2, at end insert—

“(7A) Proceedings may also not be brought under this section if—

(a) before the last date on which the proceedings could otherwise be brought, information is made available to HMRC by a person liable for the tax (or a person acting on behalf of such a person) on the basis of which HMRC could reasonably have been expected to become aware of the lost tax, and

(b) it was reasonable to expect the proceedings to be brought before that date.”

See Amendment 36.

Amendment 45, page 55, line 8, at end insert—

“(8A) Subsection (7A) will not apply in cases where a person liable for the tax (or a person acting on behalf of such a person) is subsequently found to have failed to provide all relevant information available to HMRC, or to have provided misleading information.

(8B) For the purposes of subsection (7A), whether information has been made available to HMRC is to be determined in line with section 29(6) TMA 1970.”

See Amendment 36.

Amendment 27, in clause 82, page 58, line 9, leave out from “section” to “may” in line 10.

This amendment would provide for all regulations under the new power (EU double taxation directive) to be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Amendment 28, page 58, leave out lines 13 to 17.

See Amendment 27.

Amendment 18, in schedule 1, page 148, line 34, at end insert—

“21A The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expected revenue effects of the changes made to TCGA 1992 in this Schedule, along with an estimate of the difference between the amount of tax required to be paid to the Commissioners under those provisions and the amount paid, and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”

This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effect on public finances, and on reducing the tax gap, of the changes made to capital gains tax in Schedule 1.

Amendment 17, in schedule 2, page 177, line 21, at end insert—

“Part 1A

Review of effects on public finances

17A The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expected revenue effects of the changes made to capital gains tax returns and payments on account in this in this Schedule, along with an estimate of the difference between the amount of tax required to be paid to the Commissioners under those provisions and the amount paid, and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”

This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effect on public finances, and on reducing the tax gap, of the changes made to capital gains tax in Schedule 2.

Amendment 29, page 177, line 42, at end insert

“unless the amendment relates to a disposal of an asset or assets resulting in a capital loss between the completion date of the disposal in respect of which the return is made and the end of the tax year in which the disposal is made.

(2A) In that case, an amendment may be made to take into account any capital losses which have arisen after the completion date and within the same tax year.”

This amendment would allow UK residents to submit an amended residential property return where a capital loss on non-residential assets is incurred after the completion of the residential disposal and within the same tax year.

Amendment 19, in schedule 5, page 211, line 45, at end insert—

“Part 2A

Review of effects on public finances

34A (1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the revenue effects of this Schedule and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) The review under sub-paragraph (1) must consider—

(a) the expected change in corporation tax paid attributable to the provisions in this Schedule, and

(b) an estimate of any change, attributable to the provisions in this Schedule, in the difference between the amount of tax required to be paid to the Commissioners and the amount paid.”

This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effect on public finances, and on reducing the tax gap, of Schedule 5.

Amendment 21, in schedule 6, page 221, line 26, at end insert—

“13 The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expected change to payments of Diverted Profits Tax and any associated changes to overall payments made to the Commissioners arising from the provisions of this Schedule, and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within 6 months of the passing of this Act.’

This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effect on public finances of the diverted profits tax provisions in the Bill.

[Anneliese Dodds]

As my hon. Friends have set out a number of times already today, this is a Finance Bill that continues the Government’s previous programme of austerity for the many while the very best-off people are protected. This Conservative Government chose to tie the hands of this House with regard to amending the Bill, so there are very few means we can adopt to have an impact on any of these measures. None the less, new clauses 2 and 4 would require the Government to at least review their regressive policy approach. I realise that I need to compress my remarks, so I will speak briefly to each of those new clauses and then to new clause 26, which pushes in the same direction, and new schedule 1, which in many respects exemplifies this Government’s slipshod approach, particularly to tax policy making.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I do not believe I can, as I have been told that I have to proceed quickly.

For many years, the Government failed to take action, before clamping down purely on taxpayers and doing little to nothing to the enablers of this form of tax avoidance. I hope the Minister will be clear about this. He has talked about the promotion of defective schemes. When taxpayers are described as having done something illegal, which is what HMRC has said about the behaviour of those subject to the loan charge, why will the Government not say that those who promoted those schemes also promoted something illegal? They use this language about defective systems. I am sorry, but that is pusillanimous. Those who were unwittingly led into schemes that are now described as illegal must themselves be able to take action against those who wrongly advised them.

I hope that the Minister will look at that very carefully and accept the new clause. If he does not, I hope that he will accept my backstop, to coin a phrase, and have a meeting with me. I am glad he has intimated that he may be willing to do so to talk about how we can better help people who have ended up in a very difficult situation—some of them with their eyes wide open, but many of them not realising the impact of these schemes.

[Nicky Morgan]

I rise to speak briefly—I know time is short in this debate—about new clause 26. For the avoidance of doubt among those on the Treasury Bench, I will not be supporting the new clause, but, as Chair of the Treasury Committee, I want to put on the record some concerns about the loan charge on behalf of the many individuals who have contacted the Committee and of the Committee members who have expressed concerns about it. I hope that Ministers will listen and engage with MPs across the House on this issue.

The Committee has raised concerns about the loan charge in evidence sessions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and with HMRC and the Chartered Institute of Taxation. As the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) said, it is right that people should pay their fair share of tax on their earnings, and we do not support anything that seeks to get around that. It is right that HMRC should act swiftly and firmly to close down such avoidance schemes.

However, tax law sets out time limits within which HMRC can open inquiries and make tax assessments. Normally, those time limits take account of whether a taxpayer has taken reasonable care to comply with their tax obligations, has been careless or has deliberately decided not to comply. They are seen as valuable taxpayer protections, giving a degree of certainty that takes appropriate account of taxpayer behaviour.

It is certainly concerning to me—I am not sure I can speak on behalf of the whole Committee, but I think it is fair to say that I speak on behalf of many of its members—that HMRC’s contractor loan settlement opportunity requires people who want to put their affairs straight to waive those protections, with the threat of the loan charge looming over them. It is not clear why it is necessary for that settlement opportunity to pressure people into paying tax for years that HMRC calls “not protected”—years where HMRC is out of time—even though it may have had the information it needed to open inquiries or raise assessments at the proper time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

This has been a Finance Bill of highs and lows. One high was the Government finally listening, albeit only when they were pushed to do so by the prospect of losing a vote, as we have just seen in relation to the loan charge. Another high was the fact that we saw the House seize the initiative to act to protect our country from the negative consequences of a no-deal Brexit for our economy and for our safety and resilience, as set out by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) in what I thought was an extraordinary speech.

I understand that the vote a couple of hours ago on the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) was the first time that a Government have been defeated at this late stage of a Finance Bill since the summer of 1978. At that stage I was only four months old, so I cannot exactly say that this is the only time I have seen a Government defeat on a Finance Bill in my lifetime, but I suspect it was the first time for many other Members. It was an appropriate defeat, because it shows that this House has adopted responsibility when our Government have sadly been unwilling to do so.

All this has happened in a context where Government have systematically attempted to reduce the opportunities for this House to influence the Finance Bill. Conservative Ministers’ decisions over recent years to prevent the House from substantively amending Finance Bills have been unprecedented. They have become a new norm and reflect the lack of confidence that this Government have in arguing their convictions. Surely that, above all, is the case with the Government’s approach in this Finance Bill, which preserves austerity for the many while the very best-off people and profitable corporations continue to benefit, our productivity gap yawns, regional inequalities widen and we see the creation of unprecedented phenomena in this country, such as the fact that getting into work is no longer the ticket out of poverty that it once was.

We have seen this Government’s unwillingness even to gather the figures and evidence about how their measures will affect child poverty or public health, in a context where life expectancy is for the first time going down in some of our communities. We have seen them bowing to lobbying pressure and introducing loopholes to protect many overseas investors from measures intended to level the playing field between them and domestic investors. Finally, we have seen the extraordinary contortion of a new schedule being inserted into the Bill just before Christmas to introduce a new tax relief for profitable corporations, not only very late in the day but without any information whatsoever about the cost that it will pose to the public purse. Indeed, we will not get that information before the measure is implemented.

The Government are spendthrift when it comes to profitable companies and the very best off, but miserly when it comes to the worst off. I see those on the Government Front Bench adopting a rather pantomime-style response to that. I am sorry to say that the overall package in this Finance Bill supports that contention, as do the figures, if only we could have them in front of us now.

Despite the considerable problems with this Bill, given the fact that it now contains provisions that militate against a no-deal scenario—surely the most significant risk currently to our economy and indeed to our security—we cannot and will not oppose it. I want to end by thanking all the civil servants and indeed staff of this House who have worked so hard on this Bill, and who have helped us in the Opposition—[Interruption.] I see that the Minister wants to thank them, too. I also want to thank all my hon. Friends who have contributed to our debates on this Bill.

Draft Payment Accounts (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2018 General Committees

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful explanation.

Once again, we are in a Delegated Legislation Committee debating a Treasury-related statutory instrument that makes provision for the financial regulatory framework after Brexit in the event that we crash out without a deal. In each of those debates—there have already been many—I and my Labour Front-Bench colleagues have spelled out our objections to the use of secondary legislation in this manner, as well as the challenges of ensuring proper scrutiny of the sheer volume of legislation that is being passed. We have expressed frustration many times that we must spend time and resources creating a framework that might never be used. The fact that, as of last night, an additional £2 billion will be spent on no-deal planning, all for the sake of a dangerous game of brinkmanship, is not lost on those whose schools, hospitals and other public services are struggling.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

It is disappointing to hear the tone the hon. Lady is striking. Does she not see that this is sensible contingency planning, as the Minister set out? We need to be ready for all eventualities, and that is exactly what we are doing. I look forward to her constructive comments on this measure.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I have spoken in many of these Committees, and I will go on to speak constructively about the details of the measure. However, I reiterate that there is considerable concern in the nation about what is happening. To many of us, the prospect of no deal appears closer than it has in recent days, and that is enormously concerning. If we cannot reflect on that concern in this House, I do not know where we can. I believe we do a service to our constituents—businesses as well as individuals—by expressing their worries. [Interruption.] I beg your pardon? I think the hon. Gentleman wants to say something.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I said we just need to be ready for it.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I absolutely agree—of course we need to be ready for it. That is why the Opposition have spent so much time going through, to the extent of our abilities, every piece of delegated legislation that has been delivered to us. There will be up to 70 pieces of delegated legislation relating to financial services, so that has been a challenge. Much of that legislation has been delivered at the last minute, without the appropriate documents alongside it and so on, but we are doing our very best to make sure that we are as prepared as we can be in the event of no deal, given the considerable disruption it would create for us all.

Much of this particular piece of delegated legislation is straightforward and merely amends existing legislation to create regulatory equivalence. None the less, I have a number of questions for the Minister. The first issue is the gap in reporting between the potential no-deal date and 2022. I am unclear why regulation 13(b) will omit regulation 43(1)(b) of the Payment Accounts Regulations 2015, which commits the FCA to reporting back to the Treasury every two years on

“compliance by the Money Advice Service with the requirements of regulation 12”

of the 2015 regulations. Regulation 12 states:

“The Money Advice Service must provide consumers with access, free of charge, to a website comparing fees charged by payment service providers”.

There is no indication in the 2015 regulations, or in the draft regulations we are considering, why that is in any way necessary or in keeping with the rest of the measures. Perhaps the Minister will explain that.

I note that Baroness Drake raised the issue of the transparency of fees and charges in the other place, but the Minister there did not respond to her question, although he responded to other issues she raised. Will this Minister explain why an alteration is being made in that regard when, in theory, as he said in his introduction, this measure is meant to be a simple transposition of responsibility?

The second issue is that, at least as of this lunch time, the impact assessment has still not been published, despite the fact that this SI was debated by the Lords last week. Will the Minister explain why it has not been published and why we are being expected to pass a measure when we have not even seen an impact assessment? That approach is becoming common across Government, and it is a worrying development. Just last night, we saw that, in relation to the most fundamental power of a Government—the ability to deprive people of their liberty; in that case, people who are mentally incapacitated—an impact assessment was provided only the day before, and it was already out of date.

We have procedures in this House to prevent the passage of flawed legislation and ensure democratic scrutiny. The Opposition are well aware of the pressure that our civil servants are under. They are working in incredibly difficult circumstances, which the Government created. We cannot stand by and let our capacity to scrutinise measures be reduced by information not being made available to us. I hope the Minister will inform us when the impact assessment will be provided and explain why it was not available before the Committee sat or the Lords considered this measure.

Baroness Drake pushed the Minister in the other place on the impact this SI may have on UK citizens resident in other EU countries. We are all aware of the necessity of bank accounts for everyday activities. Even with the two months’ notice period that the Government have stressed applies to this measure, it is worrying that banks could close accounts in the event of no deal. The Minister in the other place seemed to suggest that would be a commercial decision, and this Minister suggested it would be at the discretion of banks—I think that was his terminology. Will he provide deeper assurances that the Government will consider the people who may be negatively affected? I appreciate that there have been conversations—to use his language—but we need something stronger.

In the other place, we were informed that only a very small number of people would be affected, but the impact could be very significant. As my counterpart in the other place, Lord Tunnicliffe, rightly stated,

“for the people it affects, it affects them 100%. If you cannot get a basic bank account, that is pretty close to catastrophic in the modern world”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 December 2018; Vol. 794, c. GC88.]

I am not sure about the situation in the UK, as I have not been in that situation myself, but in other countries it is difficult to conduct certain transactions without a domestic bank account. Paying Government bills or bills to public service providers can get very complicated without a domestic bank account. Even with the international bank account number system, it is still very difficult.

I can imagine a UK citizen resident in an EU27 country needing a UK bank account to pay for services or goods consumed by an elderly parent—almost like an emergency bank account. If that account were closed, the UK citizen would have the hassle of searching around to find another bank that was capable of providing an account to them. Presumably, they would have to do that on their own—they would need to shop around themselves, potentially at a time when they were nervous about their ability to use their existing account over the next two months and about needing to get a new one to pay for the items their parent required.

Will the Minister consider asking the FCA or another body, if such circumstances arise, to ensure that people who are affected by closure of their account can at least access information about which other providers may be willing to provide such an account to them as residents in the EU27? Will he look at ensuring that there is some continuing availability if all the banks decide that, commercially, it is not worth the candle and they do not want to provide an account? That may be the outcome.

The Minister in the other place stated that, although there had not been a formal consultation process about these measures with consumer associations beyond sending them the SI and accompanying information, he suspected that there might have been some contact from consumer organisations following the debate in the other place seven days ago. Will the Minister tell us whether there has been contact with consumer organisations? If so, what was their feedback? Are they happy with the change? We need that kind of information before we can be happy with this measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

Well, let me answer the questions asked by the hon. Member for Oxford East. She mentioned the gap in reporting between exit day and 2022. That is because the Money Advice Service reports to the Treasury, which then reports to the European Commission, and it is that provision that is deficient. I assure the hon. Lady that there are no changes to the requirement for the Money Advice Service to host a price comparison website—that has already been launched—so to answer the question that she perfectly understably asked, there should not be an issue.

There is no reduction in the requirement for transparency on fees. The only change is that the FCA is taking over responsibility for the regulation of the documents from the European Banking Authority. We have of course worked with the FCA, so I can say in answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central that it is willing and ready to take on those responsibilities.

On the wider question about UK citizens living in the EU27, we expect the number of individuals affected by the measure to be very small. We have had conversations with banks on the arrangements that we will put in place; the hon. Member for Oxford East mentioned the subject. It is worth remembering, as I said in my opening remarks, that any individual legally resident in an EU27 country will have the right, under EU law, to access a basic bank account in that country. If they had been using their basic bank account from the United Kingdom solely, and then no longer had access to that—an unlikely scenario, and one that would affect a very small number of individuals—they could, as of right, open a basic bank account in the country in which they are legally resident. We see no reason why they would not be able to do that.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, but surely the question is not whether certain people would become completely unbanked as a result of the changes, but whether they could still carry out the kind of transactions that are very difficult to do, in whatever country, unless one has a domestic bank account. If one does not, it can be very difficult to pay certain kinds of bills and make certain kinds of transactions and so on—and there are normally additional charges involved.

[Robert Jenrick]

Those people would be able to open a bank account in the UK at the commercial discretion of a UK bank. We do not think there will be many, if any, examples of individuals having their bank account withdrawn, but of course it is technically possible that a bank might choose to do that. We think it is unlikely that these individuals would continue to use their UK-based bank account as their sole current account. If, say, a Spanish student came to study in the United Kingdom, opened a UK basic bank account and then returned to Spain, it would be a costly bank account for them to continue to use as their current account, because they would have to pay currency charges whenever they transferred money. The situation that the hon. Lady alludes to would apply only in a limited number of circumstances. I take her point that there could be such circumstances, but we do not think there will be a substantial number.

It is worth remembering that our duty in this instance—I am sure the hon. Lady would support this—is to maintain equivalence, not make policy changes. We are ensuring that any individual resident in the UK will have access to a basic bank account, but we are not making a change to ensure that UK citizens resident in third countries can have access to a UK basic bank account; that would be a policy change, because it would of course be applicable beyond the EU27 to any country in the world in which a UK citizen might choose to reside. I hope that she is reassured that our intention is to act within the confines of the law—not to go beyond it and take action that might apply to a British citizen resident in, for example, Canada or the United States who wished to maintain or open a UK basic bank account.

The hon. Lady also asked a question about consumer organisations and industry consultation. In drafting the statutory instrument, the Treasury engaged confidentially with industry representatives to make them aware of these changes, and to allow them the opportunity to comment on any of them. We have not received any queries or comments on the proposed changes from those groups, or from any consumer groups, since publication, so we can only assume that they are content, but of course we will continue to work, and to be open to comments, should any come forward in the weeks and months ahead.

I think that I have answered most of the questions posed by the—

[Anneliese Dodds]

The Minister is being very generous with his time. I believe that I asked when the impact assessment would be forthcoming.

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and I will come on to that as my final comment. First, I will answer what I think was the final comment from the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, in respect of potential discrimination against EU nationals resident in the UK. What she suggests is not the case under this statutory instrument. Any resident of the United Kingdom who is legally resident in the United Kingdom will have access to a basic bank account, just as they would if they were living elsewhere in the EU.

Draft Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2018

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2018 General Committees

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the rationale for the measures. Of course, we have talked in previous Committees about other statutory instruments arising out of them. This is a significant problem; I understand that more than 11 million pensioners, in particular, are being targeted annually by cold callers, with fraudsters making 250 million calls a year, which is the equivalent of eight per second. That is a huge problem, and behind those figures there is a significant human impact on some vulnerable people.

As the Minister will be aware, during the Committee stage of the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018 the Labour party called for the FCA, rather than the ICO, to be given functions in respect of the ban on unsolicited direct marketing relating to pensions. The FCA has much stronger powers than the ICO and can strike off members who contravene the rules. We also called for an offence to be created for the use of information obtained through cold calling.

Will the Minister explain his response to those points? I have looked through the accompanying material and it is not crystal clear to me which body will be responsible for enforcing the ban, or whether the respective powers of the FCA, as against those of the ICO, have been taken into account in this determination.

I am concerned about the restricted powers of the ICO. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the views of various representative bodies. In particular, the Fair Telecoms campaign has intimated that the ICO has restricted means of ensuring compliance. I recall sitting on a previous Committee examining delegated legislation related to other parts of the Act, where we discussed transferring authority to the FCA precisely because it is a more powerful and authoritative body. It would be useful to hear more about that.

Secondly, it would have been helpful to ban the use of information derived from cold calls. That would have resulted in firms that provide financial services covered by the FCA being banned from using information gathered by introducers, thereby breaking that part of the chain. I know that that idea was not accepted by the Government, but has the Minister considered other means of dissuading such forward use of that information?

Thirdly, perhaps I have not got to grips with the relevant part of the legislation, but it is not clear to me exactly who the draft regulations will cover with respect to the telephone preference service register. The Fair Telecoms campaign maintains:

“This change in regulation will only affect the behaviour of callers who are currently checking numbers on the TPS register before making calls. For those who do not it simply adds to the cases that may be the subject of action by the ICO, rather than making any significant change.

Targets with their numbers on the TPS—the basis for many of the statistics given about the volume of calls alleged to be covered—are not affected in any way by this measure. It is understood that 80% of UK households have their number recorded on the TPS. At best, this measure can only affect the remaining 20%.”

Will the Minister clarify whether the draft regulations are focused on those not covered by the telephone preference service? If so, is it the Government’s view that the service is sufficient? It would be helpful to hear the Government’s thinking on the matter.

Fourthly, the Minister states that the draft regulations are in line with GDPR requirements, but some have suggested that their consent provisions are weaker than those in the GDPR. It would be helpful to understand where the exact language used about consent in the draft regulations has come from and why it is formally different from the language used in the GDPR.

Fifthly, as I understand it the regulations are drafted to cover only cases in which there is specific reference to

“funds held, or previously held, in an occupational pension scheme or a personal pension scheme”.

Cases in which a caller fails to make specific reference to the source of the funds that may be used for an unwise investment will therefore not be covered. Is the Department aware of that potential loophole? We can all imagine a particularly inventive and devious caller simply manipulating their sales script to comply with the letter but not the spirit of the draft regulations by talking in general terms without referring to a specific existing personal or occupational pension scheme.

Finally, may I push a little harder on the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian? Would a response to a text message that was legal under PECR be sufficient to enable future cold calls within this regime?

[John Glen]

indicated dissent.

[Anneliese Dodds]

The Minister shakes his head, helpfully. I will take that as a no, but it would be great to get a response to my other questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

Fraud is fraud, and with actionable fraud the police can be contacted in such circumstances. With respect to the cold calling mechanism, I have said all I can on that. The Government are open on the basis of evidence to move forward.

The hon. Lady also raised the issue of how the Government will ensure that consumers do not accidentally give consent through ticking a box on a form. To give clarity on what GDPR sets out, it is a high standard of consent, requiring a positive opt in. Any default method, such as a pre-ticked box, does not constitute consent under GDPR, as I made clear in my opening remarks. Guidance to firms on complying with GDPR highlights that that request for consent must be prominently displayed, clear and specific, and separate from the terms and conditions.

I hope that that deals—

[Anneliese Dodds]

rose—

[John Glen]

Clearly, it does not. I am happy to give way to the hon. Lady.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, who has been generous and helpful in his responses. I have one question remaining, which might fit into the rubric of what he has said about Government being open to further tightening, if necessary. I have handed over my speaking notes, but I recall that the legislation refers specifically to occupational or other pension schemes, and how a scammer or somebody selling inappropriately could use general talk of pensions to get into that conversation, and thus creatively comply. Will the Minister’s Department look at that carefully?

[John Glen]

I am clear that this is about pensions cold calling. I understand what the hon. Lady is saying about loopholes, in the sense that that conversation could hide that intent. It would be appropriate for me to reflect on that and write to the hon. Lady and the Committee. She raises a fair point, and the last thing we want to do is leave such ambiguity out there.

To conclude, this legislation will make a real impact in tackling pensions scams, deterring pensions cold callers by making their actions illegal and signalling to consumers that legitimate companies will not cold call them about their pensions. I hope the Committee will have found the sitting informative and will join me in supporting the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I celebrate when the UK economy is doing well and I celebrate when the Scottish economy is doing well. I was recently in Scotland meeting the Scottish Finance Minister and talking about measures to improve growth. What I think will be interesting is to see, in tomorrow’s Scottish budget, whether the Scottish Government match the tax cuts that we have made across the rest of the UK—or will Scottish taxpayers end up paying more?

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Resolution Foundation has found that millennials’ weekly earnings are less than those of the previous generation at the same age, which is unprecedented. That is due to more insecure and low-paid jobs, and less job mobility. As well as stronger workers’ rights, halting the decline in business investment would help, but that needs business confidence. Will the Chief Secretary tell me why her Government are listening only to the European Research Group, not to the voice of business when it says that we need a permanent customs union?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The hon. Lady obviously has not seen today’s wages figures, which show that real pay grew by 0.8%, and we are seeing more and more young people getting into work.

Finance (No. 3) Bill (Ninth sitting)

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

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

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Ms Dorries. I agree with many of the comments of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. I will first speak to our amendments that push in a similar direction to the Scottish National party’s, before moving on to those that highlight other shortcomings of the clause.

To address the effect of the extended time limits on vulnerable taxpayers, our amendment 139 would introduce a de minimis threshold of £50 for the extended time limits, pushing in a similar direction to SNP amendments 105, 106, 107, 137 and 138. It follows the advice of the Chartered Institute of Taxation’s low incomes tax reform group, which raised concerns about the clause. Its written evidence states:

“LITRG remain deeply concerned about the impact of these changes on low income, unrepresented taxpayers.”

Our amendment seeks to restore a sense of balance to the new procedures set out in the clause. Given the serious restrictions on amending this legislation, which we have raised many times in this Committee, we are not able wholly to reform the process, but we think our amendment would improve the clause by making a moderate change that has been requested by groups that have lobbied Committee members. LITRG’s written evidence continues:

“In order to reduce the impact of the measure, the Government should introduce a de minimis threshold for the extended time limits to apply. For example, the approach taken by HMRC in assessing trivial amounts under the Worldwide Disclosure Facility (WDF), e.g. where the net amount due after applicable reliefs is no more than £50, may be suitable.”

Why might a de minimis threshold be necessary? LITRG points out that the changes

“only affect those who have acted non-deliberately and they erode the distinction…between those who take reasonable care and those who are careless.”

It further notes:

“Threatening letters from HMRC cause a great deal of unnecessary distress”—

particularly to vulnerable people who may not understand why they have been contacted. Surely it would be sensible to focus HMRC’s resources on dealing with large-scale tax evasion, rather than on people—especially older people—who may accidentally have failed to pay a very small amount of tax. I hope that the Minister will consider accepting amendment 139 in the spirit in which it was intended: as a genuine improvement that would protect vulnerable people.

Amendment 140 would introduce a public register of companies included under the changes. It relates to Labour’s wider policy, which we have pushed several times in this Committee, of having a public register of offshore trusts. It would be wonderful if the Government decided that they wanted to accept that policy now. Perhaps they will do so in this potentially final sitting. Who knows? We can always hope.

To further address the potential effect on vulnerable people, amendment 141 would require the Chancellor to review the impact of the changes in relation to characteristics including age, income, primary language and legal status. That would help us to better understand how they may affect individuals or organisations, because we need to get a sense of who the measures focus on and who HMRC will be chasing as a result. It is essential that all tax owed is paid, but given the impact on the Exchequer of the large tax breaks and sweetheart deals that the Government have engaged in, it seems unlikely that the measures will affect those who have avoided the largest amounts of tax. It would be helpful if we understood more about that, which is what our amendment pushes for.

In its briefing, LITRG has some interesting information about this point. It says:

“Many people assume that ‘offshore’ tax matters relate only to the wealthy. However, 24% of daily enquiries to the charity Tax Help for Older People in September 2018 were related to the Worldwide Disclosure Facility. The average age of the callers was 76 and they had small amounts of foreign bank interests and/or pensions.”

It continues:

“In our experience and from insight garnered from THOP, the vast majority of taxpayers who have undisclosed liabilities related to offshore investments will want to be compliant upon simply being made aware of the error”.

LITRG also makes a point about accessibility for non-native English speakers:

“Migrants, whose first language is unlikely to be English and who may therefore struggle to navigate the complex rules on the taxation of offshore income and gains, are another group likely to be affected because they are more likely to have offshore investments prior to their arrival in the UK.”

The measures are significant because they change the conventions on how long taxpayers would anticipate having to save information about their tax affairs. The LITRG briefing states:

“The measure adds complexity to the question of taxpayer certainty on when a tax year is ‘closed’ and impacts on a taxpayer’s record-keeping obligations—effectively requiring people to keep records for 12 years just in case they need to make a disclosure to HMRC. This is well beyond the current statutory time limit for keeping records.”

Most of us, I think, would assume that seven years is the normal period for which one would be sure to keep those records, and 12 years is a significant extension. The Government’s equalities impact statement on the proposals makes no attempt to understand how those different individuals would be affected. We think it is necessary for the Government to look carefully at the question.

As to amendment 142 and amendment 145, which pushes in the same direction, more information is necessary about the proposed revenue effects of the clause. We have spoken many times in Committee about the importance of publishing full and transparent information on policy changes, to allow for proper opposition. We have often felt that there has not been adequate scrutiny of the Bill. Of course, I am saying this on the day that was set for the meaningful vote, which has been cancelled, when we were hoping for a chance to scrutinise another area.

The policy papers accompanying the clause point to “negligible” revenue effects from the change, for at least three years, along with some costs, also described as negligible. I have said many times that it is essential that all tax due should be paid, but one must wonder what the Government are doing when they say that there will be only a negligible impact on revenue from the changes, given the scale of the wider tax gap, and the avoidance going on in certain sectors. It would be helpful to have more information about that, so that we can understand why the Government are prioritising in this direction.

We also need an understanding of the measures in relation to incentives to comply with tax rules, which is what amendment 143 would provide for. The issue is once again eloquently set out by LITRG, which states:

“the proposals erode a general feature of the current law that the circumstances leading to the error determine the length of time which HMRC have in order to raise a discovery assessment. The incentive to take reasonable care is therefore reduced under the proposals, because an individual will have the same time limit applicable when they make a non-deliberate error, whether or not that error is careless.”

So it seems that, according to the experts, the changes may make it less likely that HMRC will collect its full due of tax, and that, instead, incentives not to comply will be created. It would be helpful to hear the Minister’s comments on the LITRG assessment. What provisions have the Government put in place to ensure that incentives are not weakened by these measures? If the Government have not put policies and protocols in place, they should accept the amendment and conduct the review the Opposition ask for.

Amendment 145 would apply a review of revenue effects to clause 80, which is similar to what amendment 142 would do. The two clauses need to be taken together, because both impose longer time limits, in relation to income tax and inheritance tax. However, a big area has arguably been missed out—corporation tax. As I understand it, both measures taken together are forecast to raise £15 million in the scorecard up to 2022-23, which is, as I have said, a quite small amount. We feel that that could be because of the decision to restrict this measure to income tax, inheritance tax and capital gains tax, and not to apply it to corporation tax.

That is peculiar, because there was a commitment in the consultation document to potentially apply the extended time limit to corporation tax as well, dependent on the result of the consultation. The consultation document stated:

“given that many offshore structures involve corporate entities, the government is considering, and would welcome views on, applying this proposal to CT”.

Doing so would have made a lot of sense, because there is currently exact alignment between assessing time limits for companies and individuals—four years for innocent error, six years for carelessness and 20 years for deliberate error or fraud.

However, the Government’s response to the consultation, issued this summer, said that, while the extended time period for assessment will apply to income tax, inheritance tax and capital gains tax, the Government would, as a result of feedback, not apply the measure to corporation tax at this stage. That leads to many surprising anomalies. In the future, assuming that these measures are enacted, HMRC will have at least 12 years to investigate the affairs of small, unincorporated businesses involved in offshore transactions, but it will have only four years to do so if identical transactions are undertaken by corporates. A small sole trader or partnership whose business involves offshore transactions will be subject to investigation for at least 12 years, while a huge company such as Google or Amazon that is engaged in similar activities will have finality after just four years, unless fraud or carelessness are involved.

At this stage we surely need to know why the Government decided to reject a longer assessment period for corporation tax. There were only 11 responses to the consultation in total, including from some very large firms that work with very large corporates. The response document stated that

“the majority of respondents were not in favour of applying ETL—

extended time limits—

“to corporation tax (CT) and raised concerns about the possible impact on increasing administrative costs if this was done.”

The document said that “12 years of uncertainty” were

“a particular concern for corporates with complex affairs.”

It added that some existing anti-avoidance measures relating to offshore structures do not apply to corporates—it did not state which ones, and corporates are generally subject to more stringent anti-avoidance rules for offshore transactions than individuals—and that applying them would create inconsistencies.

The response document also noted that respondents were concerned about the 12-year time limit applying to those groups subject to controlled foreign company—CFC—rules, even though such rules are designed to apply only to the most egregious avoidance structures, so not the kind that would be targeted by this measure. The document states:

“CFC legislation applies to corporates and their offshore subsidiaries. The application of a 12 year assessment time limit was seen by the majority of respondents as creating major complications for corporates with CFCs who might need to keep records for each subsidiary for many years as a precautionary measure.”

[Interruption.] Ooh, I am about to be beamed up. Anyway, I will continue. In the light of those concerns, the Government said in the response document that they would not apply the extended time limits to corporation tax.

The rationale offered for extended time limits for income tax, inheritance tax and capital gains tax in the original consultation document was that the existing time limits are inadequate for HMRC to investigate the full facts, because of the complexity of offshore structures. At the same time, the response document says that the reason the measure will not be applied to companies is that the affairs of large companies are so complex that it would represent an unacceptable administrative burden for them to be subject to the same time limits as smaller, unincorporated businesses. I hope the Committee is picking up on some of the paradoxes in this response document.

The response document also asserts that applying extended time limits to companies would create inconsistencies, yet at the moment, as I mentioned, assessing time limits for individuals and companies are aligned. It is this measure that creates the inconsistency by making small businesses subject to new time limits three times longer than those applicable to corporates.

In practice, complex offshore structures are rarely used by small businesses. However, they are routinely employed by multinational enterprises as a way of minimising their tax—for example, the type of structures known to be used by the likes of Google and Amazon that put their profits into territories where no or little tax is paid. Having extra time to investigate the affairs of such companies seems a proper response to their use of these offshore structures, yet they will be unaffected by the new extended time limit rules. On the other hand, small, unincorporated businesses will be subject to them, as well as, potentially, elderly individuals with few resources to draw on to fully understand the complex impact of tax rules.

As well as being unfair, the exception for corporates provides an easy way around the rules. Simply transferring an existing offshore structure into a corporate body means the measure will have no impact. This arguably makes the measures a trap for the poorly advised, while having no impact on those from whom any yield might be expected to derive—multinational enterprises and the wealthy, who can create corporations to avoid potential investigation.

Because of the limits within which the Bill has been set, we cannot directly table an amendment that would push in the direction of including corporates. However, we do ask for a review of revenue impacts because it would enable us to get further into the question of how much revenue this measure could raise as against other measures.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)]

It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I thank the hon. Ladies opposite for their contributions, and I will deal with some of the specific points that were raised and then deal in more general terms with the measures and the amendments.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North raised the issue of retrospectivity. I can assure her that the Law Officers have confirmed that there is nothing retrospective about the measures in the clause. It is the case that no investigation that has been closed, for example, will be reopened as a consequence of the measures here. At the point that the measures come into effect, no one who is, at that point in time, out of scope of the changes would be brought into scope.

On the issue raised by the hon. Members for Aberdeen North and for Oxford East on consultation, we held a public consultation on the details of the reform on 19 February 2018. The consultation closed on 14 May, and the response to the consultation and the draft legislation were published on L-day, on 6 July.

The hon. Member for Oxford East raised the issue of the de minimis amount and referred to LITRG. It is not true that we are not securing significant amounts from the most wealthy, whether individuals or corporations. For the last year for which we have records, 2017-18, HMRC secured £1 billion in tax from the wealthiest individuals and £9 billion from the largest and most complex businesses operating in the UK—tax that would otherwise have gone unpaid.

The hon. Member for Oxford East also raised at length the important issue of why corporation tax is not included along with inheritance tax and income tax. As she said, we consulted on this aspect at some length. The vast majority of responses did not support extending the measure to corporation tax and raised a number of new practical and legal issues with such an extension. The hon. Lady identified some of them, although I know she was not persuaded by the arguments that were put. However, there were a number of them.

For example, the rules that identify offshore issues were not designed for corporates and would result in a wide range of genuine commercial transactions being caught that were never considered when the rules were originally designed. Tax indemnity agreements on the sale or purchase of businesses could also be affected retrospectively, as a 12-year time limit was never anticipated. The 12-year time limit could create major complications for corporates with control of foreign companies—the hon. Lady spoke about that at length. Some corporates are also subject to other rules, such as the senior accounting officer rule, so it was seen as unnecessary to extend the measure to such companies.

The hon. Lady also specifically mentioned Google and Amazon, or a similar type of business, in this context. She should not overlook the fact that we are right at the forefront of looking at a digital services tax to make sure that those companies pay their fair share of tax in the United Kingdom.

[Anneliese Dodds]

Will the Minister explain whether those firms were strongly in favour of the measures that have been taken in relation to them and others, such as the diverted profits tax, or whether they have argued against them, potentially in consultations? Is consulting those who may, or whose clients may, have a revenue hit as a result of the measure and only listening to them really the appropriate way to make policy?

[Mel Stride]

I was making a slightly different point. It was not so much about what the response may or may not have been—I do not know the answer to that, regarding the measure that is under consideration by the Committee—but rather about our push to make sure that just those companies pay the appropriate level of taxation in the United Kingdom. Frankly, I think the businesses themselves want to be seen to be paying a fair level of tax. That is the impression that I get from the Treasury perspective. We are not on the back foot on this; we are very much on the front foot, pushing within both the OECD and the European Union to make sure that we can come up with a multilateral solution, which has particular advantages over going it alone. However, we have made it clear, as the Chancellor set out in the recent Budget, that in the event that there is not a multilateral solution, we will of course act unilaterally by 2020.

[Mel Stride]

Yes, of course. I would be very happy to do that and in some detail. As I have already suggested, the general point is that those businesses that would not be in scope of these new arrangements, at the moment that they come into effect, would remain out of scope of these arrangements. That is the important point, I think, but I will certainly write to provide further detail.

My final point is about whether we are going soft on larger businesses, which I think was the overarching implication of the hon. Member for Oxford East. She should bear it in mind that at any one time, about half the 210 largest businesses in the United Kingdom are under active investigation. That does not mean that they are doing anything wrong—it may be far from it—but I sincerely believe that HMRC are very good at making sure that those businesses are thoroughly engaged with, particularly the large ones, because that is where a lot of yield lies.

[Anneliese Dodds]

We are not talking about whether those large businesses are taxed at all, are subject to new tax measures or are investigated at all. What we are talking about are the time limits for that investigation. There is an anomaly in what the Government are presenting between the time limits for corporates against individuals. Surely that is what needs to be addressed.

[Mel Stride]

I am reflecting the fact that while corporation tax is not covered by these measures, that is not the same thing as saying that we do not have an appropriate regime overall for making sure that large businesses pay their fair share. I was giving some examples such as the diverted profits tax, common reporting standards and all sorts of things, including base erosion and profit shifting, that the hon. Lady will know feed into that particular argument.

To turn to the generality of the measures, clauses 79 and 80 make changes to help ensure that everyone pays the tax they owe. Individuals under inquiry by HMRC for offshore non-compliance will now face assessment for 12 years of back taxes for income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax. It applies only to cases where tax losses arise in respect of offshore matters or offshore transfers.

Those clauses will affect only individuals with offshore structures who are not paying the correct amount of tax. The measure is not retrospective as it does not give HMRC the power to reopen any currently closed cases. It is right and fair that everyone pays the tax they owe. It can take longer for HMRC to establish the facts where offshore non-compliance is involved. In some complex offshore cases, tax cannot be collected as the time limits for HMRC to assess the tax run out before the facts can be established.

The changes made by clauses 79 and 80 will ensure that HMRC is able to deal with offshore cases effectively, where the facts are often difficult to establish. The time limit for assessment by HMRC will be extended for non-deliberate behaviour from four years in ordinary circumstances and six years in cases where there was carelessness, to 12 years. The time limit for assessment will remain at 20 years for deliberate behaviour. This measure will help to prevent individuals from avoiding a full investigation by HMRC because of the difficulty in assessing information on offshore structures and investments.

The new extended time limits will not enable HMRC to assess any tax that can no longer be assessed under current rules at the time the legislation comes into force. That was the point at the heart of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. The new time limits will not apply where HMRC has received information in accordance with certain international agreements from other tax authorities, on the basis that it was reasonable to expect an assessment to be made within the existing time limit. The clauses will raise £30 million by 2024.

Amendment 105 would unbalance the safeguards that ensure that the new time limits only apply if HMRC already has the information to make an assessment and could reasonably make it within the current time limits. If the amendment was passed, HMRC could receive information on a tax compliance case that it would be unable to act on. If, for example, information was provided from overseas immediately before the end of the current time limit, HMRC would be timed out of collecting the lost tax. That could incentivise slow responses from overseas intermediaries when partner jurisdictions gather information in response to HMRC requests.

Amendments 106 and 107 would change the years for which the clause would have effect. Where loss of tax is brought about carelessly, that would change from 2013-14 to 2019-20, and where brought about in any other case from 2015-16 to 2019-20. The amendments would water down the Government’s commitment to tackling offshore non-compliance now and delay, for at least a further four years, the additional time that the provision gives HMRC, so that the time limits would only begin to extend from tax year 2023-24. The Government are clear that the provision should start helping HMRC’s compliance work as soon as possible.

Amendment 139 would insert a de minimis threshold of £50 tax loss before the time limit applied. As currently drafted, the clause ensures that HMRC has the time necessary to conduct complex investigations. It is right therefore that HMRC can collect the tax due, regardless of the amount, once it has been calculated. It would be fundamentally unfair if the de minimis principle applied to offshore cases but not to onshore cases.

[Anneliese Dodds]

Forgive me, but is there a 12-year time limit for onshore cases for individuals?

[Mel Stride]

No is the short answer.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the Minister for very generously giving way again. He said that it would be unfair to create an anomaly between the tax affairs of those with offshore and onshore business, but we have just established that there is not a 12-year time limit for those onshore. Is there not therefore an anomaly?

[Mel Stride]

This is probably a classic case of me speaking too quickly and the hon. Lady not being given the fair opportunity to digest exactly what I said, which I will repeat, because it is a slightly different point. We are talking about the £50 de minimis, not the 12-year extension. I will reiterate exactly what I said for the hon. Lady’s benefit, so she is absolutely certain that I am not bamboozling her on this point. I said that it is right therefore that HMRC can collect the tax due, regardless of the amount, once it has been calculated. It would be fundamentally unfair if the de minimis principle—I am referring to the £50 threshold—applied to offshore cases but not to onshore cases. In other words, it is her amendment that would create the anomaly.

[Anneliese Dodds]

rose—

[Mel Stride]

I am happy to give way again if the hon. Lady desires.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I thank the Minister for allowing me to comment on this again. We are surely talking about very different cases. One deals with the normal process of tax collection and investigation, which most individuals assume would apply for seven years, and people need to keep papers for that long. The other is fundamentally different, and deals with the extension of the time limit to 12 years. If we were to do that onshore, then we may also wish to introduce a de minimis for that process, which would, as his measure introduces, go back between seven and 12 years. That is a point that needs to be made.

[Mel Stride]

I sense that the hon. Lady might have accepted my earlier point that my reference was actually to the £50 de minimis rather than the time limit. She has now introduced another argument, which she prosecuted during her opening remarks—that somehow we should not have a difference in the amount of time to investigate such matters pertaining to whether they are offshore or onshore-related. The whole crux of what we are doing rests on the, I think, fair belief that offshore transactions are less transparent. Those situations are more complicated and often involve dealing with different jurisdictions and intermediaries in order to establish the information that is required for HMRC to carry out its duties. That lies at the heart of why there should be a longer period for offshore entities than for those that are onshore.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I was talking about the application of a de minimis. I was trying to say that, if the Government were looking, for example, to extend the investigation period for domestic tax affairs beyond the existing time limits, they might even wish to consider a de minimis of £50. I was cognisant of the de minimis—my confusion was caused by the Minister’s remarks. He seemed to suggest that having a de minimis only in relation to offshore tax affairs and not to domestic affairs would be peculiar. We are talking about a de minimis only in those cases of that very long period, not in relation to general tax affairs. I would never say that we should have a de minimis on tax generally, which would mean that we could not pay tax on anything—VAT and so on. That is not what I suggested at all.

[Mel Stride]

This is probably a discussion for another day, in the sense that the hon. Lady is asking that, in the event that we revisit the issue of the time limits for onshore investigation, we should on that basis consider her amendment anew, because it might dispense with the different treatment between onshore and offshore. We might come to that in another world on another occasion, in another Finance Bill.

I am anxious to make progress—the hon. Member for Bootle sits there looking like he has got all day, but we have to make progress. Amendments 141, 142 and 143 on clause 79, and amendments 144 and 145 on clause 80, would require the Government to review the impact and effectiveness of the clauses within six months of the passing of the Act. Such reviews, however, would not have the intended effect: no data in relation to the characteristics of persons affected, the revenue effects of the changes, or the effects of the changes on incentives on persons to comply, will be available after six months. That is because it is unlikely that a full assessment of any relevant cases will be conducted within the six months after Royal Assent. Thus a report would likely be impossible or meaningless.

On that basis, I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Kirsty Blackman]

If the Minister writes to me with the comments about retrospectivity, it may be that we will not press our proposal to a Division on Report, but I will not press it now in anticipation of receiving that letter.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I appreciate the Minister’s remarks, but we believe there is still an anomaly, and we remain concerned about the potential treatment of elderly taxpayers and so on. We will press our amendments to the vote.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 139, in clause 79, page 53, line 28, at end insert—

‘(7A) But an assessment under subsection (2) may not be sought by the Commissioners unless they are satisfied that the liability to tax is in excess of £50.’—(Anneliese Dodds.)

This amendment establishes a de minimis threshold for the extended time limits of £50.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Construction industry scheme and corporation tax etc

[Anneliese Dodds]

I beg to move amendment 146, in clause 81, page 55, line 39, at end insert—

“(3A) No regulations may be made under this section unless the Commissioners have issued guidance on the conditions necessary for an officer of Revenue and Customs to be satisfied that the requirement for security is necessary for the protection of the revenue (for the purposes of the provisions of regulations made in accordance with the duty in subsection (2)).”

This amendment would require the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to issue guidance on how it is determined that security is necessary for the protection of the revenue.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 147, in clause 81, page 56, line 25, at end insert—

“(3A) No regulations may be made under this paragraph unless the Commissioners have issued guidance on the conditions necessary for an officer of Revenue and Customs to be satisfied that the requirement for security is necessary for the protection of the revenue (for the purposes of the provisions of regulations made in accordance with the duty in sub-paragraph (2)).”

This amendment would require the Revenue and Customs Commissioners to issue guidance on how it is determined that security is necessary for the protection of the revenue.

Amendment 148, in clause 81, page 56, line 44, at end insert—

“(4) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects of the changes made by this section on the construction industry and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”

This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effects of the provisions of Clause 81 on the construction industry.

Clause 81 stand part.

[Anneliese Dodds]

The overall aims of the clause appear sensible, providing HMRC with powers to make secondary legislation to require a person to provide security for corporation tax liabilities and construction industry scheme deductions that are or may be liable to HMRC. Under the clause, failure to provide security when required will be a summary offence and a person who has committed it will be subject to a fine.

As I understand it, securities may be required where a taxpayer has a poor compliance record, and in phoenix-type cases where a business accrues a tax debt, goes into liquidation or administration and the person responsible for the operation of the business sets up again, with the risk of running up further tax debts. Sadly, we have seen far too many of those cases.

The measure is effectively an extension of HMRC’s powers to require security in relation to some areas of business tax—the powers it has currently—to include VAT and PAYE, as well as national insurance contributions, insurance premium tax and some environmental and gambling taxes.

The Government maintain that the clause will be specifically targeted at the minority of businesses that seek financial gain from non-compliance with their tax obligations rather than those that are genuinely unable to pay. They argue that it will not affect those who are managing their debts with HMRC under agreed time-to-pay arrangements with which they are complying—we have touched on that subject previously.

The Government argue that the power will apply only where an HMRC officer considers that the provision of a security is necessary to protect revenue. None the less, we believe that the changes merit further scrutiny, and therefore have tabled a number of amendments.

Amendment 146 seeks to introduce a requirement for HMRC officials to issue guidance on their use of securities to protect revenue. It is a probing amendment that seeks to clarify the circumstances under which a security will be requested for revenue protection. We do not in principle object to the measures being taken to protect revenue—they appear essentially sensible—but we seek to understand better the scope offered to HMRC officials in making such a judgment or, conversely, the guidance they are offered by the Department in making such a decision.

Will the Minister clarify what guidance will be offered and undertake to publish it later? After all, in the Government’s consultation, the feedback was pretty clear. The feedback document stated:

“Most respondents wanted to see clear guidance put in place to support the introduction of the securities and ensure that securities will only be used where it’s appropriate and proportionate to do so. Two thought that legislation should be expanded to provide the rules under which the securities regime should operate.”

How have the Government responded to that point? It is clear that more transparency is needed.

With amendment 147, which follows the previous one, we are likewise seeking to determine what guidance HMRC commissioners would receive. As I said, we do not object in principle to the use of securities to protect tax revenues; we simply seek to understand how and when they will be applied and whether the guidance is determined by Government policy or subject to the discretion of officials. I hope the Minister will either provide that information to the Committee or accept our amendment, which would ensure that further information is provided before these powers are enacted.

The policy papers relating to the clauses suggest that that is necessary. They state:

“Experience from the existing securities regime has shown that, when used in a carefully targeted manner, securities can be very effective in changing the behaviour of non-compliant businesses and protecting future revenues against the risk of non-payment. Currently these powers apply only to certain taxes and duties.”

We need to understand how these powers will be targeted and which criteria will be used. I hope the Minister will respond to that reasonable request.

Through amendment 148, we seek to understand how the new measure will affect the construction industry. As I said, this is an extension of the security deposit legislation to the construction industry scheme and companies chargeable to corporation tax. The documents on the impact of the policy do not discuss the construction industry in detail. The expectation should be that anyone avoiding tax should pay, but it is clear that providing a security could reduce capital stock in some companies, so we need a sense of the impact on those who may be required to pay a security. Again, that was reflected in the Government’s consultation, which stated:

“Several respondents commented specifically on the implications for insolvency and commented that HMRC should give careful consideration in cases where viable businesses were struggling financially and a security could force the business into insolvency. Similarly, respondents did not want the use of securities to limit the rescue environment for financially distressed businesses. One respondent suggested that before extending the security deposit regime, HMRC should commission independent research into its current approach and the effect that demands for a deposit have on struggling businesses.”

The context is that HMRC has lost a large number of its experienced staff, who might have had expertise in security regimes in relation to other taxes. Therefore, we need to know what the impact is likely to be on businesses that may have to deal with HMRC officers who have less understanding of the construction industry than previously would have been the case.

Finally, I note that we are informed by the tax information and impact note that HMRC will need to make changes to its IT systems to process the new security cases. The cost of the changes is estimated to be in the region of £840,000. It will also incur operational costs currently estimated to be in the region of £5 million. Those costs seem fairly high to me. I hope the Minister will explain why they are of such a significant magnitude.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Very briefly, if the Labour party chooses to press these amendments to a vote, we will support it, because we think that what it is trying to achieve is very sensible.

--- Later in debate ---

Securities have been a feature of the tax system for many years and experience has shown that they can be a very effective way of driving change in customer behaviour and protecting revenue at risk when they are used in a targeted and proportionate manner. Clause 81 will help HMRC to tackle the minority of businesses that choose not to meet their tax obligations at the expense of the compliant majority. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Anneliese Dodds]

In the light of the Minister’s response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 82

Resolution of double taxation disputes

[Kirsty Blackman]

I beg to move amendment 137, in clause 82, page 58, line 9, leave out from “section” to “may” in line 10.

This amendment provides for all regulations under the new power to be subject to the affirmative procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I will come to amendments 137 and 138, but first I would like to speak briefly to Labour amendments 149 and 150.

We have seen the complete and total shambles over the past 24 hours—and not just over that period, but over the past two years. The past 24 hours have highlighted where we are in relation to EU withdrawal. Various people are suggesting that no deal is more and more likely, so it is incredibly important we know the potential effects of any changes that the Government propose to make to legislation in the event of a negotiated deal or no negotiated deal. We have a clear idea of the effect of retaining the status quo, which is the Scottish National party’s preferred position, and the revenue effects would be much easier to calculate. We are comfortable supporting Labour’s amendment 149 on that subject and amendment 150, which is about the expected revenue effect of the regulations.

I turn to the two SNP amendments. Amendment 138 is consequential on amendment 137, so I will focus on amendment 137. Given what has happened in recent times, trust in the Government is possibly at its lowest ever point. We are being asked to agree to give the Government power to make changes without going through proper scrutiny procedures. The Government are basically asking us to trust them, and we feel that we cannot trust pretty much anything they say right now, so more scrutiny is sensible.

When people who support leave talk about the European Union referendum and Brexit, they talk about taking power away from faceless bureaucrats in Brussels and returning it to Parliament. A lot of the legislation that is being considered just now does not return that power to Parliament in any meaningful way, and it does not allow Parliament proper scrutiny of the range of things that could come through. We are talking here about just one small area, but that problem has been highlighted in a huge number of things that have come out of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. There is massive concern from members of the general public, who now understand what Henry VIII powers are—we are in unprecedented times. There has been a power grab from the Scottish Parliament, and this is one more small thing the Government are trying to do to take power away from where it should sit.

Given that the Government cannot command a majority in the House; given that they folded on SNP amendments to the Bill—that was, clearly, because the SNP amendments were wonderful, rather than because the Government did not have a majority—and given that they cannot get legislation through, the level of Executive power needs to be tested. We need to make the Government use their majority if they want to get powers through the House, rather than relying on the fact that because they are the Government, they can do what they like. That is why the SNP has tabled amendment 137, which would require the Government to ensure that more of the regulations made under clause 82 go through the proper scrutiny procedure, rather than relying on the Treasury to make some of them without proper scrutiny.

[Anneliese Dodds]

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

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

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

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

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I do not have much to add other than that I still want to press amendment 137 to a vote.

[Anneliese Dodds]

Briefly, the Minister referred to TIINs. I wonder whether, for the next Finance Bill, he will commit to ensuring clear linking from the Bill website to the different TIINs so that we can quickly see which one applies to each clause. It has been quite a waste of time having to search for them randomly.

As to the question whether the provisions should be examined using the affirmative procedure or should have to be prayed against using the negative procedure, I take on board the points made by the hon. Member for Poole. However, we all know that, when measures are dealt with by the affirmative procedure by default, much greater attention needs to be given to them. That is the reality. Generally, I fear that attention is not always paid to matters that may superficially appear technical but that, when one delves into them, may be discovered to have a concrete impact on different groups. Even with the affirmative procedure, the level of debate on taxation matters has, I would argue, traditionally been quite limited. I note that, for the first time in Parliament’s history, we have recently had votes in relation to tax treaties. I was pleased that we motivated those votes, yet UK tax treaties with other countries have never been subjected to proper scrutiny in the House.

Many matters covered by Delegated Legislation Committees are not purely technical. In fact, this has been talked about by my hon. Friend, who represents Leeds—help me out. [Hon. Members: “Stalybridge!”] I am sorry, I am not great at the memory game. In talking recently about some of the no-deal planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde has been talking about the potential for some of those measures to have such a significant impact that the Government themselves are not au fait with it. Given the time allotted, they seem to expect the Opposition to pass them with a rather cursory glance. I am afraid, therefore, that the suggestion that we already have a failsafe system for dealing with some of those significant matters is simply incorrect, so if the SNP presses amendment 137 to the vote, we shall support it. However, we will not press our amendments.

[Mel Stride]

Perhaps I may quickly respond, Ms Dorries, just to say that on the important matter of the TIINs, and the link from the website, I know that the hon. Lady raised that on a previous clause, and I should be happy to look into it for her. If she has any specific ideas that she would like to put to me in that respect, I should be grateful to receive them.

Finally, on the matter of negative SI procedure, and prayers against such measures, in the event that we have an effective, strong, organised, united and well led Opposition, I am sure that that will not be beyond them.

Question put, that the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

There is no need for consultation on this measure because, as the hon. Gentleman will know, it was just putting beyond doubt what has been established practice over a very long period. He raised the issue of retrospection. The measure is retrospective, inasmuch as it is putting beyond doubt the fact that these rates were appropriate in the past. We are just bringing the long-standing practice out of any sense of uncertainty.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that the loan charge was retrospective. It is not, because the arrangements entered into under the loan charge scenario were always defective. They never worked at the time when they were entered into, and therefore the tax was due in the past. It is being collected in the present.

[Anneliese Dodds]

In that case, when advisers advised individuals to undertake these schemes, were they promoting illegal schemes? It would help to have a clear answer on that.

[Mel Stride]

They were in many cases promoting schemes that did not work and were defective, and in many cases promoting schemes that had been taken through the courts by HMRC—and, in a case involving Rangers football club, through the Supreme Court. On each occasion, they have been found defective.

[Anneliese Dodds]

The Minister says those schemes were defective; is he saying that they were illegal?

[Mel Stride]

I am saying that the schemes were taken through the courts and were found defective; they were found not to work. As this is the third exchange between us, let us be clear about what lies at the heart of the way in which these schemes operate. If as an employer I said to an employee, “Instead of paying you normal earnings, from which you would pay your national insurance and your income tax—as the employer, I would pay the national insurance—I will pay you by way of a loan. You and I know it is not really a loan, as there is no intention of you ever repaying it. I may well send that loan to an offshore trust”—as many of these schemes do—“before sending it back to you. The consequence is you pay no, or next to no, tax, because it is treated as a loan, not earnings or income.” That lies at the heart of these schemes. That model never worked, and the schemes were always defective at the time they were entered into.

[Anneliese Dodds]

However, those taxpayers who are required to face the loan charge have been told that they have done something illegal. I am asking the Minister whether those who advised them to undertake these schemes were advising them to do something illegal, because the advisers have not faced anything as a result of this, whereas the taxpayers have.

[Mel Stride]

The enablers and promoters of those schemes have been subject to various pieces of legislation, going back a number of years. In almost every Finance Act, or every year, there has been legislation clamping down on them. They are subject to a penalty of up to £1 million as a consequence of that kind of behaviour. Where they have acted inappropriately, the legislation is there, and HMRC has the powers to pursue them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 87 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 88

Regulatory capital securities and hybrid capital instruments

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

Finance (No. 3) Bill (Seventh sitting)

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

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

[Clive Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. The point has not been lost on many people, including in my own city of Norwich, where some people are part of a court case against the Government on this issue and on others relating to climate change. It is something that many people are concerned about, especially given the impact on very young children, who are often lower to the ground and closer to the fumes. I welcome the point my hon. Friend has raised.

This issue is directly relevant, because an element of VED revenue take, including the extra amount raised by the clause, is ring-fenced to provide a fund of about £500 million for air quality. Londoners are contributing to this, in common with the rest of the country. The Government have allocated about £255 million of that funding for clean air zone implementation and another £220 million for the clean air fund, including supporting measures to soften the impacts of clean air zones on the poorest and on small businesses. They also allocated an extra £20 million to £25 million in the Budget for city air quality measures.

London, however, is excluded from all that funding. The Government previously said that this is because London received a generous air quality settlement in 2015 under the then Mayor, who is now better known as the failed former Foreign Secretary. Frankly, that is an absurd claim, and I hope the Minister will not stretch his credibility by repeating it to the Committee today. In reality, the Government reduced the revenue grant by a far greater amount than any extra funding for air quality, reducing it from £700 million to nothing in this financial year. The Mayor’s office received no air quality funding from the Government as part of the last comprehensive spending review. Unlike other cities, London is not getting help to implement the ultra low emission zone, and nor can the Greater London Authority access the mitigation funding to help small businesses and low-income people in other cities to meet new vehicle emission standards. That is perverse.

In addition, that predates the changes to VED, which Londoners are contributing to, and ignores the fact that, quite frankly, the current London Mayor has far greater ambition on air quality than his predecessor did. London is introducing the first, biggest and most ambitious clean air zone—the ultra low emission zone—on 8 April 2019. This is an essential part of the national air quality plan to achieve compliance with our legal obligations.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that my city, Oxford, is due potentially to be the first city in Europe with a zero emissions zone? We need more support for such initiatives from the Government—more than has been forthcoming up to this point.

[Clive Lewis]

Yes, I was aware of that. Labour local authorities in Oxford and across the country do fantastic work on the issue, but they often do so in isolation and with limited support from central Government. The Government should really be getting behind them, given the severe impact that poor air quality can have, not just on children, but on all of us—it is now believed to be connected to the onset of Alzheimer’s and other degenerative diseases.

The London Mayor has proposed a targeted scrappage scheme that uses camera data to ensure that only vehicles that are regularly in the ultra low emission zone receive scrappage funding. The proposal meets the criteria set out in the five-case model in the Treasury’s Green Book and has a positive business case ratio.

Will the Minister confirm that none of the general VED revenue will be spent in London, because the Treasury plans to give it to Highways England to maintain strategically important roads outside London? Strategically important roads in London are maintained by Transport for London without any Government support or a share of VED income. Frankly, I suspect that any assessment made under our amendments would reveal that money is available from the proceeds of VED, which of course will rise under the new rates proposed in clause 57. I am also confident that any assessment under amendment 111 would show that reducing harmful emissions in London is vital to our national effort on climate change and air quality, let alone the fact that it would address the suffering of ordinary people in our most congested city.

It is fair to say that there is a strong suspicion that the Government’s political refusal to support Londoners owes more to Londoners’ refusal to support them at the ballot box than to the best interests of the city or the country as a whole. If the Minister wants to dispel that impression, will he clarify what share of VED revenue comes from London now and what share he expects to come from London after the passage of the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Lewis]

I am pleased to be speaking—again—to our amendments relating to clause 58, on vehicle excise duty and taxis capable of zero emissions. The clause seems to rectify an obvious mistake made by the Treasury during the 2017 Budget, which saw electric vehicles fall into the luxury vehicle segment of the new VED regime for cars costing over £40,000.

VED rates are based on carbon emissions, and zero-emissions vehicles below £40,000 have a zero standard rate and a first year rate. Standard rate on zero-emissions vehicles above £40,000 is currently £310 a year for the first five years. To include electric vehicles in that policy was clearly a major oversight by the Treasury in last year’s Budget. The correction, although somewhat late in the day, is none the less welcome and, indeed, essential if we are to seriously encourage the uptake of electric vehicles, specifically taxis.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that back then, Opposition Members warned about the potential unintended consequences of those measures, including for the private hire and taxi industries. Those warnings were not heeded at the time. It is rather frustrating that they have only now been dealt with.

[Clive Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point; that is one lost year of support.

To include electric vehicles—ah, I have already said that. I will recap, though. [Laughter.] To include electric vehicles in that policy was clearly a major oversight by the Treasury in last year’s Budget. The correction, although somewhat late in the day, is none the less welcome and, indeed, essential if we are to seriously encourage the uptake of electric vehicles, specifically taxis.

That is particularly pertinent as local regulations are tightening around clean air and greenhouse gas emissions, as we have seen with the implementation of the ultra low emissions zone in London. Amendments 112 to 114 require the Government to undertake a review that we believe is essential to understand the consequences of the clause, which range over the impact that it is likely to have on the Exchequer, on the taxi and private car rental industry, and on CO₂ emissions and climate change targets. Amendments 112 and 113 focus on the economic impact of the clause, both on the Exchequer and on taxi and private car rental companies. Can the Minister provide an assessment of the revenue implications of the measure?

Similarly, while we understand from the published documents relating to the clause that industry response to the Government consultation was supportive, will the Treasury do further analysis of the potential economic impact on taxi companies and the private car rental industry, should the change come into effect? The Minister may wish to resist the amendments, but regardless of any legal obligation, will he commit to conducting such an analysis and presenting it to the House in due course?

Amendment 114 refers to carbonisation and improving air quality. It would seem, in that respect, that taxis are low-hanging fruit. They are used frequently, often in urban areas with poor air quality. Similarly, according to the Mayor of London, drivers stand to benefit from lower fuel costs—by around £2,800 a year—and from avoiding present and future congestion and air quality charges. We believe, however, that the Government have failed to put in place necessary fiscal incentives to encourage the transition to the electric vehicles needed to ensure a reduction in CO₂ emissions. Simply removing the excess tax for luxury vehicles, as the clause would do, does not go far enough to encourage the uptake of zero-emission vehicles.

The primary driving forces behind the reluctance to take up electric vehicles are cost and an anxiety about range. The costs of electric vehicles are explained by high manufacturing costs, specifically of their batteries. The anxiety about range affects taxi drivers far more than private vehicle owners or private car hire companies, as they do not have access to the range in the ultra-low emissions vehicle segment of the market for mid-range to luxury. That is due to licensing conditions, as they need to fulfil accessibility requirements. In London, for example, that means that many drivers are mandated to buy a London-style hackney taxi in many districts. Will the Minister agree to assess the impact of clause 58 on CO₂ emissions and the UK’s climate change targets, and whether that policy goes far enough in encouraging the purchase of zero-emissions taxis?

I have a few questions on the clause. At present, a grant of £7,500 is available for new zero-emissions taxis. We believe that the Government should be looking to increase available grants and encourage the transition to electric vehicles, specifically taxis, in areas outside Greater London. There are currently only a few limited pots of funding, not all of which are available for taxis, and they are largely skewed towards Greater London.

Similarly, the Government have yet to invest a penny of the £400 million charging fund announced in the 2017 Budget, half of which should be public money, with the other half contributed by the private sector, as we have already heard. Will the Minister tell us whether the issue that the clause seeks to rectify will aid the Government in finally setting up the charging fund that they promised to deliver to encourage the use of zero-emissions vehicles? Will he give us a clear timetable of when that fund will be operational? Will he commit that he or another relevant Minister will come back to the House with more detail when it is due to launch?

Available charging infrastructure is a requirement of accelerating the transition. Outside London and a few select places, availability is poor. Drivers face a postcode lottery that is a barrier to electric vehicle growth. For example, there are more chargers available in the Orkney Islands than in Blackpool, Grimsby and Hull combined. Even if grants are available, drivers in some areas will be unable to perform their work using EVs, due to the unavailability of charging infrastructure. It could therefore be argued that even if the Government increased grants and ensured that availability, poverty of EV infrastructure would mean that a majority of taxis would not be in a position to benefit from the change suggested in clause 58. Will the Minister comment on that? What assessment has been undertaken of the availability and adequacy of the infrastructure, and what steps are being taken to ensure that it does not undermine the good intentions behind the clause? Although the current situation is a mistake, it should not have happened in the first place. The measure is important in seeking to undo the bias created by classing zero-emissions taxis as luxury vehicles, and in encouraging the uptake of zero-emissions vehicles.

We will support the clause—we ask only that the Government assure us that the right analysis will be done to assess the impact of the measure on the Exchequer, the companies that will be affected, and the environment. We urge the Government to take such matters into consideration. I hope the Minister can give us some assurance on those points.

Finance (No. 3) Bill (Eighth sitting)

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Clive Lewis]

The hon. Lady makes a good point—

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is not that good a point.

[Clive Lewis]

It is a very good point in the sense that the hon. Lady cannot not come down here—I understand that. It is not such a good point about breaking away from the United Kingdom, and independence. However, we understand that she has to make the journey for work purposes.

It is a small minority of people who have to work in the way that the hon. Lady does, but many people now talk about the use of new technologies, and there may come a time, in the near future, when a holographic image of her could be here to represent her constituents. That may soon be upon us—who knows? We have been talking about the impact of technology.

--- Later in debate ---

In terms of how we can use the tax system to tackle aviation emissions, APD is not designed to be an environmental tax. One could use it for that purpose, but it has already been set at a very high rate internationally. I am not clear that there is evidence that further material increases would make a difference. Because of international conventions—the Chicago convention and others, as I described earlier—we are unable to tax aviation fuel or any proxies for fuel. The Government remain committed to engaging actively on this agenda. I can see that the hon. Member for Oxford East is eager to intervene—she and I have discussed this previously.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the Minister for being willing to give way. He will probably remember that I asked for the concrete ways in which Government are engaging with international partners around that convention. I have not received any concrete details aside from the general aspiration to change things. Can he provide some details now?

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Lady and I discussed this in a Westminster Hall debate earlier in the year. I believe I wrote to her afterwards to set this out, but perhaps she was not satisfied with the response. I am happy to revert to her with more information, but I made the point in that letter that the UK Government are committed to this, and we play a leading role internationally in discussing the future of the Chicago convention. As I also set out in the letter, several of the leading aviation nations—including the United States and Australia—have limited interest in changing the current regime, which makes it rather difficult to make the kind of progress that I suspect she would like us to make.

[Anneliese Dodds]

The Minister is being generous in giving way. It might help the Committee to know what meetings the Government have called, which Governments they have contacted to discuss the matter and what public pronouncements they have made on the subject. I have been unable to find evidence of any.

[Robert Jenrick]

I will write to the hon. Lady again to set out some of the information. I discussed the matter with my officials in preparing for this Committee, and they listed some of the international meetings they have attended, where they represented the United Kingdom exactly as she would like us to have done.

I hope I have addressed amendment 104 in my earlier comments. This is a matter that the Scottish Government could take forward themselves, given that we have already legislated for the devolution of APD. The impacts of any future reductions in Scotland are a matter for the Scottish Government, and they will clearly become more so once we proceed to the long-term arrangement that the hon. Lady wishes for.

The changes being made by clause 60 ensure that the aviation sector continues to play its part in contributing towards the funding of our vital public services, raising £3.4 billion a year. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

Like the hon. Gentleman, I get all the glamorous jobs, so I will endeavour to answer all his questions about landfill.

Clause 64 increases the standard and lower rates of landfill tax in line with inflation from April 2019, as announced in Budget 2017. Landfill tax has been immensely successful. Since its introduction, the amount of waste disposed of at landfill sites has fallen by more than 70%—of course, we would like to go further—and the benefits of that reduction are twofold. The first is to the economy: we have made better use of scarce resources rather than simply tipping them into holes in the ground across the country. Secondly, greenhouse gas emissions from decomposing waste are reduced. When waste is diverted from landfill, we promote more sustainable waste treatment, such as recycling. We are committed to moving towards a more circular economy, and we are working together with business, industry, civil society and the public to achieve that valuable aim. Landfill tax is an important fiscal lever that we can use to achieve it.

The hon. Gentleman asked why the Government are not doing more to meet their recycling target. The Government are very committed to meeting the target of recycling 50% of household waste by 2020. Through the Waste and Resources Action Programme, we are providing guidance and support to local government to help it to improve recycling services and to communicate with householders so that they recycle more. The next milestone in our campaign is the upcoming resources and waste strategy, on which we at the Treasury have been working closely with the Environment Secretary and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. That will outline a number of further measures to increase recycling across the UK.

The hon. Gentleman and others will have noticed other important measures in this regard, including the announcement of a forthcoming consultation with respect to a deposit return scheme and other measures in the Budget—for example, a plastic packaging tax, which is to be consulted on, with the aim of increasing the amount of recycled content in all the plastic packaging that we use in our daily lives.

Landfill tax continues to provide an incentive to reduce waste from landfill and ensure it is recycled and reduced: as landfill is the most expensive form of waste disposal, that makes perfect sense. We have also noted in the Budget that we would be willing to consider a future incineration tax once further infrastructure has been put in place to reduce, for example, the amount of plastics that are incinerated, further improving the environment and reducing the amount of throwaway single-use plastics.

The waste infrastructure delivery programme is providing some £3 billion in grant funding over its lifetime to a number of long-term local authority waste management projects, which has helped to increase recycling rates from 36% in 2008 to 45% in 2017. I hope the hon. Member for Norwich South will await the future resources and waste strategy, which will provide a number of important measures. Those will include further information on the reform of the producer responsibility system, which will play a crucial role in improving recycling capacity and infrastructure in all parts of the country.

The clause also changes the tax on disposal at landfill sites. Each tonne of standard-rated material is currently taxed at £88.95, and lower-rated material draws a tax of £2.80. Those rates per tonne will change to £91.35 and £2.90 respectively from 1 April 2019, which maintains the strong current signal to move waste away from landfill.

Amendment 130 would require a review of the revenue effects of the proposed changes. HMRC published tax information impact notes when the rates were announced at the autumn 2017 Budget.

[Anneliese Dodds]

As far as I understand it, that note did not look into the impact of differential tax rates on waste crime. The picture is very worrying: the number of illegal waste sites that the Environment Agency is dealing with had risen to 1,485 at the end of 2017-18, compared with 1,425 the previous year. The number of those illegal waste sites that were active had also risen—to 673—and there were eight fires at those sites last year, so why is the Minister not considering those factors? Surely a broader review is necessary.

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Lady raises an important question about waste crime, which affects many constituents across the country, including my own. We have taken a number of significant steps. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has conducted with the Home Secretary a review of waste crime, which looked at many of these questions—I believe that review was published recently. We also included a measure in the Budget whereby local authorities, or those responsible for clearing up illegal waste sites, could receive support from the Treasury to enable them to do so if the site met certain criteria, essentially providing support equivalent to the cost of the landfill tax itself. A number of hon. Members from across the House approached us to ask for that support, and we have delivered it as a £10 million pilot.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. However, in the previous Budget, landfill tax was applied to illegal waste sites, so surely that measure is more than a pilot. As I understand it, it came into practice in April this year, because I have been trying to find out whether or not it has been applied to any sites. Surely that money should already be coming into the Exchequer?

[Robert Jenrick]

Perhaps I did not explain myself correctly to the hon. Lady. The measure that she speaks to was in the Budget last year, and has since been implemented via a statutory instrument that went through the House. That measure ensures that the landfill tax is payable on illegal waste sites. The measure that we have included in the Budget enables innocent parties—local authorities that take on, and wish to clean up, a site that has been left by criminals—to apply through the Environment Agency as part of the pilot for a sum of Treasury funding equivalent to the landfill tax, instead of having to pay that tax in addition to all the other costs involved in cleaning up the site. We hope that that will help local authorities with sites that are among the worst and most dangerous to public health to meet the costs of doing so. That measure was requested by a number of Members from across the House.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way yet again. Surely Committee members are scratching their heads and thinking, “Would it not be more efficient and effective just to fund the Environment Agency properly so it can actually do some prosecutions, rather than going through this very complex system?”

[Robert Jenrick]

We do fund the Environment Agency correctly, and it is stepping up its enforcement of these sites. We urged it to do so—that was part of the purpose of the waste crime review. We have also increased the powers available to local authorities. For example, since May 2016, they have been able to issue fixed penalty notices for smaller scale fly-tipping. Fly-tipping is a criminal offence punishable by a fine of up to £50,000 or 12 months’ imprisonment. We wish to see more successful prosecutions, because this is a significant area of criminality that is linked to serious organised crime and other important types of criminality, such as the drug trade and human trafficking, against which we wish to take serious action. That is why fly-tipping was included in the Government’s review of serious organised crime in the waste sector, to which I have already referred.

Amendment 131 seeks to review the effect of these changes on the Government’s ability to meet the waste framework directive target of recycling 50% of waste by 2020, and amendment 132 seeks to review their impact on the amount of waste exported for treatment abroad. As the clause maintains the rates of landfill tax in real terms, we do not expect significant changes to the strong behavioural incentives the tax already provides. Landfill tax continues to play an important role in our meeting our targets for recycling and encouraging alternative forms of waste treatment, and the clause will ensure that landfill remains the most expensive form of waste treatment. Furthermore, I assure the Committee that the Government are committed to meeting the 50% household waste recycling target through the Waste and Resources Action Programme and the upcoming resources and waste strategy, on which we at the Treasury worked extremely closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I hope the Committee sees that amendments 131 and 132 are therefore unnecessary.

Amendment 133 would require a review of the expected effect of these changes on the quantity of waste that is sent to landfill. The uprating of landfill tax rates in line with the retail prices index ensures that those rates remain stable in real terms, and means that the tax can continue to help the Government meet their objective. Figures published regularly—annually, I think—by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs show a consistent decrease in the amount of waste sent to landfill as a result of increases to the capacity of alternative waste treatment, such as recycling, which is encouraged by our policy on landfill tax rates. As the clause will keep the rates the same in real terms, that decrease is expected to continue. I trust that provides the Committee with sufficient information, and I ask that amendment 133 not be pressed to a vote.

Amendment 134 would require a review of the expected impact on the environment of increasing the difference between the standard and lower rates of landfill tax. The clause seeks to increase landfill tax rates in line with inflation. That is the equivalent of maintaining the rates in real terms, which means there will be no real-terms change to the difference between the standard and lower rates. Although we appreciate there may be concerns about illegal dumping or breaking of the rules, we do not anticipate the clause making any material difference to those. The issues the hon. Member for Norwich South legitimately raised about individuals or companies dumping waste on which the higher rate should be paid, and seeking to pay the lower rate, are exactly the kinds of matters that were considered in the waste crime strategy. I hope that reassures the Committee, and I ask that amendment 134 not be pressed to a vote.

Finance (No. 3) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mel Stride]

The central point is that if someone is UK tax resident, their income is taxed, albeit that some of it may occur in other jurisdictions and perhaps be subject to double taxation arrangements between that jurisdiction and our jurisdiction. None the less, my hon. Friend’s assumption is correct that if someone has a property overseas, it is effectively counted as if it were a domestic property in the context of this clause. The easements that the clause introduces in terms of greater time to put in an application for a rebate at the higher rate apply equally whether one of the properties is overseas or here in the United Kingdom.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

As the Minister explained, the clause would change the parameters for claiming a refund on the additional dwelling SDLT by quadrupling the time that claimants have to reclaim the funds, potentially for up to a whole year after they have sold their old home, if that is later than a year after the filing date for the SDLT date for the new home—so the second parameter stays the same, if that makes sense. It is quite a complex change to understand.

The “major interest” provision is also tightened to make it clearer that a major interest in a dwelling includes an undivided share in a dwelling for the purpose of the higher rates for additional dwellings. I understand that the Government have suggested that the extended time period is necessary to enable those who might find it difficult to claim to do so—for example, those who are elderly or vulnerable due to serious illness.

In principle, the changes do not water down the Government’s initial stated commitment to charge additional SDLT for those owning additional properties, provided they are held on to for more than three years and provided that they fall outside the multiple dwellings category, which I will come back to in a moment. None the less, given that the changes appear to be focused on the context for the provision of additional dwellings, as against continuously occupied single dwellings, we feel it is necessary to subject their effectiveness to review, in order to ensure that they do not water down the initial measure in any way. That is what new clauses 10, 11 and 12 ask for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Syms]

I suspect that there are a lot of people with holiday homes abroad who do not realise that when they buy a property, they have to pay a higher rate of stamp duty land tax.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am very grateful for that intervention. Furthermore, presumably it would be relatively difficult for the Exchequer to assure itself that that additional purchase had happened. This seems like quite a bureaucratic system, but I am sure the Minister can explain to us exactly how it works and how it is ensured that it is processed properly.

It would also be helpful to consider the measures in relation to the actions advocated by Labour, including enabling local authorities to treble council tax on empty properties after they have been empty for a year. Although the Government have shifted a little in this area recently, councils unfortunately still have to wait 10 years—an incredibly long time—before they can levy that level of premium.

We also need to consider the impact of these measures on house prices, which, as the Minister intimated, is demanded by new clause 12. There is a desperate need for action to level the playing field for those seeking housing for their families to live in continuously, as against those seeking a holiday home. Here again, the Opposition seek to place a surcharge on second homes that are used as holiday homes, based on council tax banding, which could raise £560 million a year to help tackle homelessness, as well as helping to level the playing field between those who can afford additional homes and those trying to take their first step on to the housing ladder. We surely need to understand the impact of the clause in relation to other potential measures.

Finally, while I have the chance, I inform the Minister that when one uses a particularly well-known search engine to try to find the very exciting HMRC stamp tax manual, it unfortunately finds the versions from 2010 initially, rather than more up-to-date versions. That surely needs to be ironed out.

[The Chair]

Mr Syms, do you want to speak?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

Clauses 44 and 48 will simplify and strengthen the current financial institution resolution regime by introducing an automatic exemption from stamp taxes on shares for public bodies and creditors whose interests are converted into shares, and stamp duty land tax—SDLT—for certain transfers of land arising from the exercise of resolution powers.

Under the Banking Act 2009, the Government have the power to exempt from stamp taxes on shares and SDLT transfers of property, in the form of shares or land that arise from an exercise of resolution powers. However, the current legislation requires the Government to pass secondary legislation exempting a defined set of transfers. This introduces potential timing challenges and creates additional complexity when resolving a failing financial institution.

The changes made by clause 48 avoid that by specifying exempt transfers in primary legislation. The stamp taxes on shares exemption will be limited to transfers of shares to a bridge entity or a public body that holds the shares temporarily while the institution is being resolved, and to the transfer of shares in exchange for temporary certificates issued to creditors that demonstrate their entitlement to the shares. The exemption does not cover the private sale and transfers of shares in a failing institution to a private sector purchaser, where stamp taxes on shares will be charged as usual.

Similarly, the changes made by clause 44 specify SDLT transfers in primary legislation. This exemption will be limited to transfers of land to a bridge entity or public body that holds the land temporarily while the institution is being resolved. The exemption does not cover the private sale and transfer of land of a failing institution to a private sector purchaser, where SDLT will be charged as usual.

The changes will simplify and strengthen the process of resolving a failed institution. In the event that a creditor is found to be worse off as a result of resolution action, when compared with an ordinary insolvency, they are entitled to compensation, which would be paid by the Treasury. The changes will protect taxpayers by reducing the risk of the Government having to compensate creditors in order to prevent the “no creditor worse off” principle being violated. They were announced in the autumn Budget 2017 and the draft legislation was subject to consultation. Officials from the Treasury and HMRC have worked closely with officials from the Bank of England to develop the legislation.

Turning to the amendments that have been tabled, amendment 90 seeks a review, within three months of the enactment of the Bill, of the viability of establishing a public register on the use of the exemption from stamp duty—something that I have already raised—and would require a report of the review to be laid before the House of Commons soon after its completion. The clauses do not create any tax exemptions for failing institutions themselves. The exemption would apply to creditors of failing financial institutions who see their debt holdings bailed in for equity, to ensure that affected creditors are not penalised inadvertently. The exemption also applies to the Bank of England, which may, in certain circumstances, need to take temporary ownership of a failing institution’s assets, in order to protect financial stability.

The clauses will strengthen and add transparency to the resolution process by providing further clarity for affected creditors and the taxpayer. The register would impose an additional and unnecessary burden on the Bank of England and provide no great benefit to the public. By creating an exemption from stamp taxes on shares and SDLT for certain transfers arising from the use of resolution powers, the Government are simplifying and strengthening the UK’s resolution regime, and I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. As he intimated, clause 44 ensures that SDLT is not charged on transfers of land following the exercise of certain resolution powers under the special resolution regime. It is paralleled by clause 48 for stamp duty. As he has intimated, our amendment 90 would require the Government to produce a review and potentially introduce a register of financial institutions in resolution that might benefit from the exemptions for SDLT and stamp duty for certain financial transactions resulting from the measure.

We are asking for such a review to have a clearer understanding of which firms might be relieved of SDLT and stamp duty in this manner. This is without prejudice to the function of the clauses, which we understand and support. In other words, we support the concept that the Bank of England should be able to use its resolution stabilisation powers to manage failing financial institutions in an orderly manner and should as part of that, where required, be able to transfer property, potentially including land held by that body, to a temporary holding entity appointed by the Bank of England or to a temporary public body. In that context, we agree that it does not make sense for SDLT or stamp duty to be paid. We are willing not to press our amendment, because of the general acknowledgment of the importance of the measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

Taking up the points made by the hon. Member for Oxford East, I will begin with her final point about why we have approached this by way of primary legislation rather than relying on existing powers to make regulations. At the heart of that is our ability to act quickly in the circumstances of the resolution powers being brought into effect, to ensure that everything goes smoothly and we do not end up in a situation where compensation might be due, where it could be shown that the measures we had taken had not been as effective as they might otherwise have been under a normal insolvency process. That is why relying on a general position in primary legislation would be preferable to a number of exercises of secondary powers.

The question of why we have made changes to the Finance Act 2003 rather than the Banking Act, and the associated question that the hon. Lady asked about whether the Office of Tax Simplification was content with our approach, are highly technical and certainly not questions to which I have a ready answer, I am afraid. I undertake to the Committee to go away and ensure that I write to the hon. Lady with a full explanation on both those points.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45

Changes to periods for delivering returns and paying tax

[Anneliese Dodds]

I beg to move amendment 95, in clause 45, page 29, line 19, at end insert—

“(11) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons a report on any consultation undertaken on the provisions in this section.

(12) A report of the review under subsection (9) must be laid before the House of Commons within two months of the passing of this Act.”

This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report on any consultation undertaken on the provisions in Clause 45.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

New clause 13—Equality impact analysis of provisions of section 45—

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the equality impact of the provisions in section 45 in accordance with this section and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) A review under this section must consider—

(a) the impact of those provisions on households at different levels of income,

(b) the impact of those provisions on people with protected characteristics (within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010),

(c) the impact of those provisions on the Treasury’s compliance with the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, and

(d) the impact of those provisions on equality in different relevant parts of the United Kingdom and different regions of England.

(3) In this section—

“relevant parts of the United Kingdom” means—

(a) England, and

(b) Northern Ireland;

“regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.’

This new clause requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry out and publish a review of the effects of Clause 45 on equality in relation to households with different levels of income, people with protected characteristics, the Treasury’s public sector equality duty and on a regional basis.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to be serving on this Committee with you in the Chair, Ms Dorries; I do not think I have said that before, and I apologise for that.

This clause reduces the time limit that purchasers have to file an SDLT return and pay the tax due from 30 days after the effective date of the transaction to 14 days. It applies to transactions to purchase land in England and Northern Ireland with an effective date on or after 1 March 2019. Of course, since 2015 there has been a separate land and buildings transaction tax in Scotland, and since earlier this year there has also been a different regime in Wales, where the relevant tax is the land transaction tax.

SDLT was introduced—we were just referring to the relevant Act—in 2003, replacing stamp duty on land transactions. Data from SDLT returns are used by a variety of actors, after being submitted to the Valuation Office Agency, to carry out activities such as valuations for the purposes of council tax and business rates.

This clause obviously has some similarities with clause 14, to the extent that it requires a faster turnaround for the payment of a tax, but clearly in this case it is payment of SDLT rather than capital gains tax. Many of the concerns expressed in relation to that change also apply in this case. They include the question whether taxpayers and, above all, their agents are likely to be sufficiently aware of the new deadline. As a result, with amendment 95, we are asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to

“lay before the House of Commons a report on any consultation undertaken on the provisions in this section.”

It appears that many taxpayers—some 85% of them, according to HMRC’s figures—already submit their return in line with the proposed new timetable. However, the remaining 15% may have reasons for failing to submit so quickly and those surely should be examined before we embark on this halving of the deadline. Indeed, there appeared to be significant concern among respondents to the consultation about the proposed reduction to the filing and payment window. The consultation response stated:

“Many felt it would be manageable for straightforward transactions—for example most purchases of residential property. Many envisaged difficulties for more complex transactions where the property purchased is subject to leases. Although only a small proportion of reportable transactions are likely to be affected, they amount to approximately 50,000 transactions every year.”

That is clearly a very large number, and those transactions may be particularly concentrated in their effects among certain segments of the population. It is for that reason that new clause 13 would require a full impact assessment of the measure to be undertaken and to consider its impact on people with protected characteristics, people with different incomes and people living in different regions.

I note in the consultation document that, at least at the time of the consultation, there was no HMRC facility for filing and paying SDLT simultaneously. It would be helpful to understand from the Minister whether that facility is coming, as it would surely make the system more efficient.

I was also surprised to see in the consultation document that more than 40% of the returns submitted on paper included errors. That is an incredibly high rate. It would be helpful to know what has been done to deal with that problem, as that system clearly cannot be helping either the taxpayer who has—presumably inadvertently, most of the time—made the error or the HMRC officer who has to try to rectify it. The very high usage of cheques, which need to be accompanied by the correct 11-figure unique taxpayer reference number, also seems almost designed to create an inefficient and error-ridden system.

It was stated in the consultation document that the shorter timescale would be accompanied by a number of other measures to improve the effectiveness of SDLT filing, but it is unclear to me whether and when those new measures are coming into place. One such measure would be requiring all agents to file online, which does seem sensible, but I was intrigued to see in the consultation document the claim that online filing may not be

“reasonably practicable…because of remoteness of location, or on grounds such as religious beliefs.”

It would be helpful if there were more joined-up thinking across Government. For example, it is very difficult for claimants of universal credit to receive it without using the online system. Surely more of them are likely to be affected by living remotely than professional agents involved in property transactions. It would also be useful if the Minister could clarify why religious faith might impact on an individual’s ability to use the internet and why that might be the case for those filing returns for stamp duty and not for those attempting, for example, to claim universal credit.

It was stated in the Government’s response to the consultation that they would look to potentially introduce electronic payment at the same time as the reduction of the reporting period to 14 days, so can the Minister please inform us whether electronic payment will indeed be available when this measure comes into play?

[Mel Stride]

Clause 45 makes changes to improve the SDLT filing and payment process. In answer to the hon. Lady’s question about whether we will provide facilities on the site to pay simultaneously, we do not have plans to do so. That is because the online service cannot be combined with Bacs and CHAPS services at present.

The hon. Lady made a more general point about the mistakes that are made in filing. As she knows, we consulted on the information being sought as part of the process, and we will be applying various simplifications as a consequence, most notably around complex commercial lease arrangements. The information that we have hitherto sought in that respect will now no longer be sought. That simplification, and others, should be beneficial in cutting down the mistakes that the hon. Lady referred to.

Currently, the purchaser of land, or the purchaser’s agent, must make a stamp duty land tax return and pay tax due within 30 days of the effective date of the transaction—usually the completion date. The changes made by clause 45 will reduce the time allowed to make an SDLT return and pay the tax due from 30 days after the effective date of transaction to 14 days. That is in line with other initiatives in recent years that bring tax reporting and payment closer to the date of the transaction. The hon. Lady referred, I think, to clause 14 on capital gains tax, where a similar approach has been taken. This is in line with these other initiatives.

The measure will not change liabilities for the purchaser, but will lead to tax being paid earlier. The change applies to purchases of land situated in England and Northern Ireland where the effective date of the transaction is on or after 1 March 2019. This change will directly affect approximately 20,000 businesses, mainly agents, such as licensed conveyancers and solicitors. Each year, this will directly affect fewer than 500 individuals who file their own SDLT returns without using an agent. However, the impact on administrative burdens for businesses is expected to be negligible.

The Government announced the change at autumn statement 2015 and consulted on it, as the hon. Lady described, in 2016. The Government confirmed at autumn Budget 2017 that it would come into effect on 1 March. To help purchasers and agents to comply with the new time limit, HMRC has worked with key representative bodies to agree simplifications to the SDLT return, for example, by reducing the amount of information required. These improvements will be in place when the new time limit begins. The measure will result in a yield of £60 million in 2018-19—the year of implementation—and a small ongoing yield in future years.

Amendment 95 would require a report on any consultation undertaken on the provisions in this section.

[Mel Stride]

HMRC will, as a matter of course, issue guidance on all major tax changes, and that will be available online. As part of the consultation, as I have outlined, a number of these organisations were consulted in detail, not just about the measures but to make sure that those businesses are ready and appropriately informed.

The amendment is not necessary. I can give the Committee the information it requires now, because it is already in the public domain. The Government published a document on 20 March 2017 in response to the consultation that we published in the autumn of 2016, and we published draft legislation in July 2018 for technical consultation. HMRC also held meetings with stakeholders, which included representative bodies from the property and conveyancing industries. Their views on the information required in the return are reflected in the changes being made to make compliance with the new time limit easier.

New clause 13 would require a review of the equality impact of clause 45. The new clause is not necessary either, because the Government set out in the tax information and impact note published on this change in July 2018. It is not anticipated that there will be any impact on groups with protected characteristics. Clause 45 does not change anyone’s SDLT liability; it just brings a requirement to file a return and pay the tax closer to the date of the transaction. For that reason, direct impacts on different types of households will be negligible, and the type of analysis required by the amendment would not be meaningful.

Regarding other regions of the UK, Land and Property Services in Northern Ireland—an agency of the Department of Finance of the Northern Ireland Executive—was consulted and is content with the measures. The changes will improve the SDLT filing and payment process, and I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. However, I am sure the whole Committee is looking to the Government to ensure that the payment and reporting systems can be calibrated as soon as possible. Surely, the very high rate of error is a terrible waste of taxpayers’ and, indeed, HMRC’s time. I hope he prioritises sorting that out and having the relevant discussions with the Bacs and CHAPS systems so it can be dealt with.

--- Later in debate ---

Stamp duty and SDRT: exemptions for share incentive plans

[Anneliese Dodds]

I beg to move amendment 91, in clause 49, page 33, line 2, at end insert—

“(c) after subsection (4) insert—

‘(5) Within three months of the passing of the Finance Act 2019, the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall review the revenue effects if—

(a) the provision of section 49(2) of that Act had not been made, and

(b) the exemption under subsection (3) of this section did not apply to a Schedule 2 SIP that was not approved between the coming into force of the relevant provisions of the Finance Act 2014 and the passing of the Finance Act 2019.

(6) A report of the review under this subsection (5) section shall be laid before the House of Commons as soon as practicable after its completion.’”

This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the revenue effects if the tax exemption under section 95 of the Finance Act 2001 had not applied to self-certified share incentive plans.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Anneliese Dodds]

The clause makes a minor change to ensure that existing stamp duty relief continues to apply to both non-approved and approved share incentive plans. Our amendment 91 calls for a review of the revenue effects of that measure compared with the status quo, under which only approved plans are covered. The amendment is intended to give us a better handle on the overall cost of SIPs and how that relates to their benefits.

As I am sure Committee members know, SIPs have been tax advantaged since 2001, when stamp duty and what was then stamp duty reserve tax—it is now SDLT—were removed from the transfer of shares in a SIP from trustees to an employee. The requirement for approval was removed in 2014, but the appropriate corrections to legislation were not made. I note that the changes in the clause are required purely because of errors of omission back then, which perhaps highlights some of the issues the Committee has discussed.

SIPs avoid many of the problems with other share incentive plans, not least by being provided to all employees rather than only to a subset. We have seen how share plans have been manipulated when they have been provided only to the top management of companies. SIPs avoid that. Although so-called free shares can be linked to the achievement of performance targets, they cannot be allocated individually. They can be provided only to a particular business unit or to the whole company, so they cannot be manipulated by, for example, very top management.

Some categories of shares can be removed from employees who leave the firm through either voluntary resignation or dismissal within three years of their joining the SIP. That and the stake that SIPs create for employees in their company are viewed by some commentators as positive aspects of the plans. In addition, there is a considerable cost saving for firms of up to £138 for every £1,000 invested in SIPs by their employees. We must acknowledge, however, that the people who gain most from such schemes are those who are already in a higher-rate tax band, who by my calculation gain around an additional third of the tax they would otherwise pay, compared with a basic rate taxpayer.

In addition, SIPs have complex interactions with the social security system. I want to ask the Minister for clarification in that respect. Information provided to SIP holders states clearly that a small number of people may be affected by the fact that, because of their salary sacrifice—I suppose in practical terms that is what this is—for their SIP, they will not have paid enough national insurance contributions to qualify for particular benefits. However, it is unclear whether contributions to a SIP are treated differently for tax and social security purposes.

Some claimants of tax credits have received mixed messages about whether contributions to SIPs should be added back on to their gross pay for the purpose of informing the Department for Work and Pensions about their income. Individuals do not have to declare their SIP contributions for the purpose of income tax, or at least those contributions generally are not chargeable to income tax. There is a peculiar and potentially unfair difference there.

That is compounded by the fact that tax becomes payable on some of the different types of shares within a SIP if an individual sells them within five years—for example, if they have to switch jobs. Some individuals have said that that is almost a form of double taxation for people who claim social security. They suggest it is a bit of an anomaly, and I can see why. For people affected in this way, they would be better off buying their firm’s shares at market prices rather than taking part in a SIP in the first place. That is the situation with tax credits, but I cannot find any information anywhere about the treatment of these schemes for those claiming universal credit.

I looked at the IR177 document “share incentive plans and your entitlement to benefits” but that was produced in January 2011, and there seems to have been no amendment of it since then. There does not seem to have been any amendment to the SIP manual relating to universal credit either, or at least not since November 2015. Having gone through all the iterations of the manual, I did not wish to waste any more time searching for a potentially non-existent needle in a haystack.

Will the Minister clarify whether contributions to SIPs are counted as income for the purposes of calculating working tax credit or universal credit? If so, will the Department be looking at this issue? Might it be trying to devise a different approach, given that individuals will be affected by the counting of those shares as income if they leave a SIP scheme early? People on low incomes may well have to switch jobs more regularly than others do, so it would be helpful if he looked into that. Perhaps he knows the answer already. If not, will he write to us? Some people would find that enormously helpful.

[Mel Stride]

On the hon. Lady’s specific question about the interaction of SIP contributions and the reporting of income, and the further interaction with working tax credits and universal credit, I do not know the answer, and I do not think my officials can immediately answer it. I will have a closer look at that and write to her, as she requests.

Clause 49 makes a minor correcting amendment to section 95 of the Finance Act 2001 concerning stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax exemptions for SIPs. Stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax exemptions for SIPs were introduced in the Finance Act 2001. Until 2014, share incentive plans had to be approved by HMRC before an employer could operate them. These were referred to as approved share incentive plans. The Finance Act 2014 removed the requirement for HMRC to approve share incentive plans and replaced it with a self-certification process. All references to approved share incentive plans should have been removed from legislation, but a change to section 95 of the Finance Act 2001 was omitted. The clause changes the wording of section 95 of the Finance Act 2001 to ensure that it is consistent with other provisions of the share incentive plans code. No taxpayers should have incurred stamp duty on self-certified SIPs since the rule changed in 2014, and this provision confirms and clarifies the position. No changes are made to the existing exemptions available for share incentive plans.

Amendment 91 would require a review of the revenue effects if the stamp duty exemptions for SIPs had not applied to self-certified share incentive plans from 2014. This provision is a minor technical change that brings the wording of the legislation back in line with its application. There will be no revenue impact as a result of the correction. SIPs offer a combination of tax incentives to employers, and estimates for the cost of the stamp duty exemptions for SIPs are not available. The clause makes a minor correcting amendment to exemptions for share incentive plans, and I commend it to the Committee.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am willing to withdraw amendment 91, given the Minister’s clarification, and I am grateful for his willingness to write to me about the issue that I raised. I make the general point that it is important that we consider these interactions between the social security system and the taxation system. It is particularly important for people on low incomes that we always bear that in mind. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50

Duty of customers to account for tax on supplies

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move amendment 92, in clause 50, page 33, line 11, at end insert—

“(9B) An order made under subsection (9) for the purposes of subsection (9A) must be accompanied by a statement by the Treasury of the expected impact of that order on—

(a) the number of traders who are expected to benefit from the reduction of a burden, and

(b) the supply chain in respect of the description of goods or services.”.

This amendment would require an order made under the new provision of Clause 50 to be accompanied by an impact statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

Clause 51 and schedule 16 make changes to ensure that we can properly collect VAT when purchases are made using vouchers. It amends the Value Added Tax Act 1994, introducing new section 51B, 51C and 51D and new schedule 10B. These clarify the VAT rules for postage stamps and set out new rules for the VAT treatment of vouchers issued after 1 January 2019.

Members of the Committee will be familiar with tokens—for example, those used in the purchase of books—but the world of vouchers has expanded significantly in recent years. The UK vouchers market is now estimated to be worth about £6 billion a year. As well as the traditional use of vouchers as Christmas presents, vouchers now play a large part in business promotion programmes and staff incentive schemes, which rely heavily on complex distribution systems using electronic, plastic and internet-based products, as well as the traditional paper voucher. Some businesses issue and redeem their own vouchers, whereas others issue vouchers to be redeemed by others. VAT law has been slow to adapt to these changes. This new law modernises the rules and introduces a simpler system.

[Anneliese Dodds]

The Minister is extolling the virtues of vouchers and noting how innovative many of the company schemes that use them are, but why are the Government still committed to removing individuals’ capacity to benefit from childcare vouchers?

[Mel Stride]

I think that issue may be outside the scope of the clause, tempted though I am to be drawn into the issue of childcare and vouchers. The hon. Lady will have noted the delay that we implemented in that respect, to make the transition that little bit easier for some of those who might have been impacted.

The clause transposes new EU law, which we pressed the European Commission to introduce, to help combat tax avoidance. The new law has to be in place by 1 January 2019 and the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968 will give the measure effect until Royal Assent of this Finance Bill.

From a VAT perspective, vouchers are unexpectedly complex. That is because, for one payment, a buyer gets two things: a voucher and an underlying good or service. Without special rules, we risk taxing twice: once for the voucher and a second time for the underlying supply. Gift vouchers could be used to buy products with different VAT rates. It is therefore often difficult to apply VAT at the time the gift voucher is bought. Furthermore, gift vouchers are now often sold at a discount to the face value, via distributors to businesses, which give them away for free in business promotion or staff incentive schemes. It is then not always clear to the shop accepting the voucher exactly what has been paid.

Finally, trading vouchers across borders resulted in problems of double and non-taxation, as different countries have different rules. The changes made by clause 51 and new schedule 16 will standardise these rules. First, the legislation specifies the type of voucher covered. Quite a few things nowadays look similar to vouchers, but are not recognised as vouchers under the VAT system—for example, the type of card many of us store money on to go on holiday or give to our children. We are not talking about vouchers that are totally free from when they are issued to when they are used to buy something, such as discount vouchers found in magazines or toothpaste money-off tokens.

The legislation identifies two distinct types of voucher and sets out specific VAT treatments for each. If we know what the voucher can buy and where, that can be charged at the point of issue and at any subsequent transfer of a voucher through its distribution network. If these details are not known at the time of issue, because it is a general gift voucher, we must wait until it is used to be able to apply the correct VAT. Therefore, the law identifies single-purpose vouchers, such as a traditional CD token that can be used only to buy CDs, which are limited to specific products, and multi-purpose vouchers, such as a WHSmith gift voucher, which can be used to buy many things,.

To avoid charging VAT twice, single-purpose vouchers are subject to VAT throughout distribution, but no VAT is charged on redemption. In contrast, multi-purpose vouchers are VAT-free through distribution, but are subject to VAT at redemption. For the multi-purpose voucher, the redeemer—the shop—must account for VAT. If they know the amount paid for the voucher, they should account for the VAT on that value. If they do not know the amount paid, they should account for VAT on the face value of the voucher.

Because the activities of any distributor of multi-purpose vouchers are disregarded for VAT purposes, there will be certain restrictions on the extent to which they can reclaim VAT incurred on related costs. I hope that the Committee is following this very closely, because it is an extremely important series of elaborations on how these vouchers work. HM Treasury and HMRC have consulted with the relevant businesses represented, and HMRC will be clear in guidance on how the rules will work.

The two new clauses would require two reviews by the Government within three months of the passing of the Act. New clause 8 concerns the impact of the provisions on the circulation and distribution of vouchers in the UK and the EU. New clause 9 concerns potential revenue and other impacts that could arise if UK law were to diverge from EU law.

Collecting VAT when vouchers are used is always complex, and it will inevitably take some time for the new rules to bed in. Throughout the negotiations about the changes in the underlying EU law, the Government were in regular contact with the UK businesses affected by the changes, and it was generally felt that this option was the best of the various options identified. Officials have worked hard with businesses to ensure as smooth a transition as possible, and HMRC has offered to be pragmatic as businesses get to grips with the new system.

I can reassure the Committee that the Government will continue to monitor the effects of the change and other developments in this area, including impacts on revenues. With regard to divergence from EU law, it is far too early to consider such impacts, given that we do not yet know the future agreement with the EU and what it will look like in respect of the VAT system more generally. However, I stress to the Committee that a key advantage of this measure is to ensure a level playing field across the EU, so that UK businesses are not disadvantaged by different rules in other EU member states, which they would need to understand and which could result in double taxation or—in terms of Exchequer impact—no taxation at all. I therefore ask the Committee to reject the new clauses, and I commend the clause and schedule 16.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

It leads me to believe that the Government have not paid enough attention. That is why we want to have a look at it in the round and why we want a review. Let us see the evidence. If the evidence indicates my hon. Friend’s contention, as I think it will, we would need to do something.

Unfortunately, despite the move to begin to increase duties on wine and cider as set out in clauses 53 and 54, it seems that the Government’s policy on wider alcohol duties reflects continuation rather than a break with the last eight years. Will the Minister confirm that it remains the Government’s policy to increase only those alcohol duties included in the clause and to freeze all those not included? That being the case, does it not seem that the attempt in clause 54 to increase the price of mid-strength cider is a mere sticking plaster on the Government’s wider policy of ignoring the harm to the public’s health caused by cheap alcohol? In other words, when it comes to applying this approach across all duties, it seems that they bottled it. Could it be that they choose to grab a quick Budget headline once a year instead of taking an evidence-based approach to alcohol harm like that adopted by the last Labour Government?

I question the logic of creating an additional rate of duty to ciders up to only 7.5% alcohol by volume. A cursory look at the white cider market suggests that many of the products that the Government seek to make more expensive are currently listed at exactly 7.5% ABV, which is the upper band of the new duty applied by the clause. Clearly, while those ciders would be covered by the new band of duty, it would take only an additional spoonfull of sugar, as the saying goes, to push them up to 7.6% ABV, which is currently covered by the higher rate of duty that is applied to so-called high-strength ciders. Would it not have been a better approach for the Government simply to reduce the lower band of excise applied to higher-strength ciders to ensure that that duty instead applied from 6.9% ABV all the way up to 8.8% ABV? Will the Minister expand on what logic has been pursued by the Government and whether it might incentivise the industry to take more decisive action to reduce the strength of their white ciders or begin to diversify their products?

Amendment 97 would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the impact of clause 54 on the cider industry. The point is to see how far the Government have tried to work with industry to develop and implement a more public health-oriented approach to their products while minimising the impact such an approach has on the industry.

[Anneliese Dodds]

Is my hon. Friend aware that there used to be a differential regime for small-scale cider producers, whose product was often of far greater quality than the kinds that are often linked to alcohol overuse? That no longer exists, partly because of changes at EU level. Surely we need to know more from the Government about what they are doing to support that part of the industry as well as clamp down on the production of very high-volume, high-alcohol product.

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point and I am sure the Minister was listening. What have the Government done to work with producers to transition to less harmful products while protecting jobs and livelihoods? That could provide an opportunity for the industry to move into other cider products—perhaps those not so reliant on glucose and corn syrup and using the cheaper pomace, all of which presumably add to the negative health effects. I hope the Minister will speak to the work that the Government are getting on with in that regard.

Finance (No. 3) Bill (Third sitting)

Anneliese Dodds Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mel Stride]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that in these tax matters—as with all tax matters—given our firm commitment to honour our climate change commitments, we are in regular contact with car manufacturers and those producing electric vehicles, through my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary.

As with all policy changes, the fiscal impact of the measure will be monitored by HMRC, and the Office for Budget Responsibility may request for it to be reviewed as the new out-turned data becomes available. The fiscal impact on taxpayer compliance has been considered and is included in the overall costing of the measure. HMRC publishes annual updates to its tax gap analysis, which will reflect the effect of capital gains tax policy changes. I therefore urge the Committee to resist the amendments and I commend the clause and schedule to the Committee.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee with you in the Chair, Mr Howarth. I am grateful to the Minister for his introductory comments and for his comments on our amendments.

As the Minister explained, the clause and schedule extend, from 6 April next year, the existing capital gains tax requirements in relation to reporting and payment for non-UK residents who are disposing of UK property, in order to include new interest that will henceforth be taxed. They also introduce, on the same date the following year, reporting and payment-on-account obligations for residential property gains for UK residents and UK branches and agencies of non-UK resident people.

The measure has been quite a long time coming. Back in 2015, the Government signalled their intention to introduce from April 2019 the requirement that capital gains tax on gains from selling or disposing of residential property be paid within 30 days of the disposal being completed. As the Minister intimated, that will be a payment on account towards the person’s tax liability for the tax year in which the disposal is made. However, the measure was deferred until 2020, and the consultation on it undertaken earlier this year, as the Minister mentioned. As I understand it, there is already a payment-on-account scheme for non-UK residents, so these measures will just extend that approach to UK residents, as well as expanding the range of taxable interest for non-UK residents.

We have tabled two amendments. Amendment 31 would delay commencement of the provisions in paragraph 3 of schedule 2 until the Government have released further details of HMRC’s consultation with representative bodies concerning awareness of those provisions among those who may be covered by them. The rationale for the amendment is that the proposed measures, as we have just discussed, introduce a new payment-on-account scheme for capital gains tax on residential property that requires filing of a return far earlier than is currently required, and far earlier than the potential 22 months to which the Minister referred, right down to 30 days after the disposal of that property.

During the consultation on the proposals, some respondents expressed their concern that taxpayers, not expecting that they needed to make such a return until the end of the tax year, might fail to inform their accountant and thus miss the deadline. Of course, in doing so they would incur interest on non-payment. Our amendments would enable details of HMRC’s discussions with representative bodies to be asked for in order to ensure that potentially affected taxpayers were forewarned of the new measures and therefore did not fall foul of them and incur that interest on non-payment.

I understand why respondents to the consultation might have been concerned by that. Their responses were summarised in the consultation response document as concerning the fact that

“taxpayers may not be aware of the new rules until after the end of the tax year when they tell their accountants about their disposals, resulting in late filing penalties.”

Some of those making that argument pointed out that HMRC charges interest for those filing late, set at 3%. That, of course, contrasts with the repayment interest of 0.5%. I completely understand why there is a difference in rates, but that difference surely adds some grist to the mill of needing to ensure that all potential taxpayers are definitely made aware of the change. After all, 30 days is not that long a period within which to act.

The Government’s response to the consultation maintains that where information needed to be obtained from third parties for the purposes of calculating the capital gains tax that should be accommodated within the periods required for marketing and conveying any such property, and that estimated declarations could be corrected later, as the Minister mentioned. I am a little concerned by some of the ambiguity in the language used in the consultation response about what will happen if a taxpayer cannot make the payment on time. This is a question not of the amount of tax owed, but of the calibration of when it will be paid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Syms]

Another slight problem is that when someone is selling a property, it is not unusual for them to renovate it or do some work on it. When they report their CGT liability, they offset their legal fees, builders’ fees and other fees. The 30-day reporting window is quite tight. With my solicitor, I tend to get a bill long after I have forgotten that I owe it.

I am sure the Minister will pick up on this question when he sums up, but is the 30-day period just for reporting the possibility of CGT, or is it for reporting the actual figures? It is quite a tight period to collect all the bills, work out the profit or offset the allowance and pay the right amount, given how people do business in this country.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful for that intervention, which underlines the fact that in practice some of the calculations may be relatively complex. The response to the consultation sets out the Government’s view that in practical terms it should normally be possible for those involved to come up with the appropriate figure, but if not, an estimate would be acceptable.

While the hon. Gentleman was making his very relevant point, I was wondering whether there might be room for people to proffer a low estimate, which would obviously have a financial benefit, and then correct it later on. Will HMRC genuinely have the capacity to understand whether such an estimate was bona fide—as he says, evidence such as relevant bills may not have been fully available at the time—or whether it was intended to reduce liability? I agree that a specific reply from the Minister to that pertinent point would be helpful.

Clearly, in this case the length of time for any deferral of capital gains tax beyond the 30-day period, up to 22 months, would presumably need to be quite a bit shorter than the length of time we are talking about in relation to time-to-pay agreements. It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that and whether his Department will be setting out criteria similar to those I have just mentioned for time-to-pay agreements to guide HMRC on this matter. Were these matters covered in the existing consultation that occurred with interested parties and just not reported in the Government’s response?

Amendment 32 would require a review of the effects on public finances if the provisions in this schedule were introduced from 6 April 2019. It would require the Secretary of State to

“lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act”.

We believe that the amendment is necessary—first, because from what I can see there are two effective start dates in the schedule and it is quite unclear why; and secondly, because we need to understand the anticipated impact of the measures to a greater degree than is surely possible with the information supplied to us.

We have already had a little discussion about the payment on account system. Arguably, it enables the smoothing of outgoings for individuals and individual businesses, and of revenue for HMRC, so to that extent it can help with financial planning. However, we are surely talking about quite a different process when it comes to the payment of capital gains tax. We are not talking about someone who is self-employed, who is very unlikely to have payment just in one big lump sum; it is likely to be in a number of different sums or continuous payments.

One could argue there is more of a rationale for payment on account in those regards than potentially here, aside from the fact that these measures will ensure more security of revenue for HMRC. Surely they could potentially have a revenue impact because, as the hon. Member for Poole mentioned before, without this 30-day limit individuals could be keeping that sum, effectively earning interest on it and paying it later.

I appreciate what was said about the interest rate being low now, but that will not always necessarily be the case. Surely it would be useful for us to have a review on the effects on public finances of these provisions, as requested in amendment 32. Amendment 33 from the Scottish National party pushes in the same direction, so we also support that.

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Oxford East; we are also happy to support the Labour party’s very sensible amendments.

Our amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effect on public finances and on reducing the tax gap of the changes made to capital gains tax in schedule 2. In 2016-17 the income tax, national insurance contributions and capital gains tax gap was 4.2%, or £13.5 billion—quite a significant amount of money for a Government to be short-changed on. It seems only sensible, then, that the Chancellor informs us of how he expects these changes to impact that tax gap. That would enable us to have a record of what the intentions are and what he expects to be the conclusion.

Only then can we coherently and clearly assess whether the measure is working or not. Especially given how unpredictable the current future is with Brexit and things, it surely only makes sense to put this stuff down in writing—“Here’s what we think is going to happen”—so that we can then assess it. Ultimately, it cannot hurt to be more transparent, so I urge the Government to accept the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

Thank you, Mr Howarth; I am sure the Committee has taken note of your guidance. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole that there is another aspect to that, and while 30 days is 30 days—not a year or more as has been the case under current arrangements—there are two points that I will make.

One is that, clearly, there is typically a moment of exchange before property transfer completes, which is an additional period of time in which paperwork is brought together. The second point is that, to the extent that it is not possible to immediately complete the information with absolute certainty within the 30 days—perhaps because of third-party valuation issues, for example—it is possible, as I said earlier, to have a balancing arrangement further on down the line in the future. That could work either way: the Revenue might owe the individual money or vice versa. That is facilitated within the arrangements.

I point my hon. Friend to the HMRC website where, should he have any more specific questions about how CGT operates, there is a user-friendly interface. He can put in all the numbers and variables, and the website will provide him with the answers.

The hon. Member for Oxford East raised the time-to-pay arrangements. Clearly, where tax is due, the Revenue takes a measured and responsible approach towards those who find it difficult to pay any tax, perhaps for reasons of personal financial difficulty or otherwise. I know from conversations that those at a senior level at HMRC have always been very keen to ensure that it operates in a sympathetic and responsible manner to negotiate the very difficult line between being sympathetic, responsible and helpful, where appropriate, and equally, making sure that we are all treated the same and that, where tax is due, individuals and companies actually pay it.

Another point that has been raised is HMRC capacity. The premise of those concerns is the assumption that, to a significant degree, the changes might generate lots of additional work for HMRC. I suspect the contrary, for the reasons that I have given. If, when the capital gain is crystallised, there is a shorter period for people to hand in the paperwork as required, it means that they will get on and do it, rather than delaying and discovering that, as a consequence, they have to contact HMRC to get involved in negotiations and discussions.

On the overarching point about HMRC and capacity, as the hon. Lady will know, we have of course invested an additional £2 billion in HMRC since 2010. We have 24,000 individuals or full-time equivalents in HMRC who are focused on tax collection. The total head count of HMRC, which stands at around 70,000, is the highest that it has been for some years. I commend the clause and the schedule to the Committee.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. We on this side do not oppose the measures and are willing not to press our two amendments to a Division. I will, however, make two points. It would help if the Minister provided some information on the criteria that would be used by HMRC for adopting deferred arrangements with individual taxpayers. Such criteria exist for time-to-pay arrangements, but none has been set out in relation to this clause, so it would be helpful to know what they are. I agree with him that there needs to be a balance between sympathy and responsiveness, to enable people to pay the tax that is due. On the other hand, there is the matter of equal treatment.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I know that my hon. Friend has been doing remarkable work on making connections with the representative bodies, and visiting offices all around the country. My constituency has about 2,700 members of HMRC staff. There seems to be incongruity between what the Minister says about capacity and resource in HMRC and my experience from speaking to my constituents. Does my hon. Friend feel the same in that regard?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I do agree. Certainly judging by the conversations that I have had in a number of different parts of the country where the consolidation programme for HMRC is occurring, there is enormous concern, particularly about the expertise that is being lost by HMRC in some very important areas.

I would hazard the argument, relating this to the previous point, that when one is talking about, for example, tax officials having appropriate discretion to offer slightly different payment plans and so on to individuals, one needs to have experienced staff who can make those kinds of decisions, but we are seeing many such staff leaving. HMRC currently has the lowest morale, I think, among its staff of any Department. That reflects concern about the regionalisation programme, but also about other matters.

As I mentioned, it would help if we were provided with the set of criteria for deciding to apply a slightly different approach and allow latitude beyond the 30 days. It would also help if we were given, perhaps in written form, more information in order to reassure us that, because the window is still open for a balancing payment to be made later, the issue that we were talking about before does not arise.

Obviously, the vast majority of taxpayers will wish to make a truthful and accurate return, but if that process is manipulated, it could default in effect to what we have already, so it would be useful to hear about some of the anti-avoidance aspects of this measure. However, as I said, we are certainly willing to withdraw the Labour amendments.

[Mhairi Black]

I appreciate everything that the Minister said. However, I think that our amendment is as sensible as it is transparent and therefore I still insist that it be part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

Clause 17 and schedule 5 provide that a non-UK resident company that carries on a UK property business will be charged corporation tax, rather than income tax as at present. The provisions will deliver equal tax treatment for UK and non-UK resident companies that carry on UK property businesses. They will prevent persons from using the existing difference in treatment to reduce their tax bill on UK rental property or land through offshore ownership.

Until 1965 all companies were subject to income tax on their profits. When corporation tax was introduced in that year for UK resident companies and for non-resident companies trading in the UK through a UK permanent establishment, other non-resident companies remained chargeable under the income tax rules. From July 2016, non-resident companies that deal in or develop UK land were brought within the UK tax net under corporation tax, but for UK property businesses, two companies, one domestic and one offshore, currently have different rules for calculating tax from a UK property income, even if their property businesses are otherwise identical.

The clause provides for a more coherent and fair tax regime by bringing the UK property business income of non-resident companies into the corporation tax regime from 6 April 2020. The transition will mean that those companies will be subject to the recently implemented policies to combat tax avoidance, including the corporate interest restriction, hybrid mismatch rules, carried-forward income loss restriction and the carried-forward capital loss restriction announced at Budget 2018. The businesses will now be taxed at the corporation tax rate and, in combination with clause 24, they will be eligible for the loss relief rules available to companies and groups. The latest estimate by the Office for Budget Responsibility is that the changes will raise £365 million over the next five years.

Amendment 39 would require the publication of a register of named individual non-UK resident companies who are charged corporation tax rather than income tax as a result of the measure. The Government do not identify specific individuals or companies that are brought within the scope of particular tax charges, and it would be inappropriate to do so. Amendments 35 and 38 would require a review of the impact of schedule 5 on corporation tax receipts. The OBR certified impact of the measure on tax receipts is set out in table 2.2 of Budget 2018. It will be updated in table 2.2 of Budget 2019 before the schedule comes into effect on 6 April 2020, so the amendments are unnecessary.

New clause 4 would require the Government to undertake a review of the effects of schedule 5, specifically to consider the effect of not bringing schedule 5 into effect and increasing the corporation tax rate to 26%. If schedule 5 was not brought into effect, non-UK resident companies with income from UK property would remain chargeable to income tax. In that situation, raising the corporation tax to 26% would create a clearly enhanced incentive for companies with a UK property business to set up offshore in order to benefit from paying the basic rate of income tax.

I urge the Committee to reject the new clause, along with the amendments, and I commend clause 17 and schedule 5 to the Committee.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation of the clause and schedule. As he explained, they set out new arrangements for non-UK resident companies that carry on a UK property business or that have other UK property income. The clause and schedule will shift those companies from the income tax regime into the corporation tax regime. The Government appear to intend the measure to deliver more equal treatment for UK and non-UK resident companies in receipt of similar income, and to prevent those that use the difference to reduce their tax bill on UK property through offshore ownership.

The measures were subject to consultation from March last year and the Government released their response in autumn 2017. In that Budget the Government announced they would make the change in two years’ time, in 2020. I anticipate that in our discussion we will return to some of the themes that characterised our discussion on clauses 13 and 14. The measure seeks to align the treatment of non-UK investors with that of UK investors in the field of real estate. On Tuesday we discussed some of the limitations that the Opposition believes there are with the Government’s approach.

--- Later in debate ---

The hon. Member for Oxford East also mentioned the register of the businesses that would come within the scope of the measure. She raised the figure of 22,000 businesses. There is a general principle about going out and publicly holding up those who fall within the scope of particular taxes, but there is also an element of proportionality. She raised the figure of £160,000, as the cost of making the technology changes that would be required to introduce the measure. [Interruption.] I apologise—the hon. Member for Aberdeen North made that point. Perhaps I can unite the Opposition parties by saying that clearly there has to be an element of proportionality when it comes to getting all this information together, then getting the register together and keeping it up to date, and asking the question, what is the particular value of doing so?

[Anneliese Dodds]

The Minister is trying to suggest that it would be a great cost, but I made it clear that HMRC would have to compile a list of these individuals anyhow in order to inform them of their tax liabilities. There would not be a collation cost. There may be a cost from other aspects of it, but not from the collation.

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady is right that HMRC will be privy to the information, but there is a difference between being privy to the information and treating with individuals and companies in terms of their tax return. Collating all that information and presenting it in the form that she envisages is a distinct activity.

I undertake to write to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North about the online number that she discovered and the numbers that were provided in the policy document. I wish I was so good that I just knew all the answers and was over the detail to that degree, but I will certainly write to her on that, and on the cost of making the changes to the system. I am happy to have a look at the £160,000 figure that she raised and see how it breaks down.

[Mel Stride]

I think I am right in saying that over the longer term, in revenue terms the measure is likely to be broadly neutral. The OBR, of course, will only cast out across the scorecard period. It will not analyse the fiscal impacts beyond that, but if the hon. Lady would care to write to me with any questions on that, to the extent that I can answer them of course I will do so.

I commend the clause and the schedule to the Committee.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, but we will press amendment 38 to a vote. Although I took on board his responses, I am concerned that we have a lack of clarity about the revenue impact of a measure, which means that as a Committee it is difficult for us to make a judgment on it. When he tried to explain why there might be a negative amount on some projections of the impact in subsequent years, he stated that that was due to the different timing of reporting of corporation tax revenue and income tax revenue. That would explain a difference for one year, but not for subsequent years, so I am still concerned about why there might have been a negative suggested figure into subsequent years.

In addition, it is not clear to me whether the figures that have been set out, whether that is one set or another, take into account the impact of coming within the scope of anti-avoidance measures and so on. That would obviously just be a projection in any case, but we surely need to have more information before we can take an informed view.

[Peter Dowd]

On a slightly wider but, I think, pertinent point, in the Red Book for this year, corporation tax for 2019-20 is £60 billion and by 2023 it is £66 billion. Does the hon. Lady find that her concerns about this specific thing are compounded by the uncertainty about, for example, the deal we will be debating in the not-too-distant future?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I agree with my hon. Friend. When we are talking about this sector in particular, we must always bear in mind the impact not only on revenue but overall on investment and the need to ensure that high-quality infrastructure is provided. I know that that is enormously important and something that the Minister is concerned with and working on. For the reasons I have set out, we will press amendment 38 to a vote.

On new clause 4, I say in response to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North that there may be some agreement on some issues, but on corporation tax rates there is a difference to the extent that Labour feels that we need to work with other countries to prevent a race to the bottom. That is something we have already been doing. A race to the bottom is damaging, particularly when many businesses tell us that the corporation tax rates do not drive their decision to locate in the UK; they may be one of a basket of factors, but other matters, particularly sunk costs, are important. Therefore, we are happy for our proposals to come under scrutiny at every point, and we hope that in doing so we might persuade the SNP to come to our view as well.

[Kirsty Blackman]

To be totally clear—I am sure the hon. Member for Oxford East did not mean this—we do not support a race to the bottom either. Our manifesto position was that we supported no further reductions in corporation tax, which is slightly different from the Labour party position.

In the spirit of trying not to take up too much of the Committee’s time and the fact that amendments 35 and 38 are broadly similar and we have covered the ground of both amendments quite a lot during the course of the debate—although the answers we received could have been clearer—we are happy not to press amendment 35 and to support Labour party amendment 38.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5

Non-UK resident companies carrying on UK property businesses etc.

Amendment proposed: 38, page 210, line 45 [Schedule 5], at end insert—

“Part 2A

Annual review of effects of this schedule

34A (1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must undertake an annual review of the effects of the provisions of this Schedule on corporation tax receipts.

(2) The report of the review under sub-paragraph (1) must be laid before the House of Commons before—

(a) in respect of the first review, within 12 months of this Schedule coming into force, and

(b) in respect of each subsequent review, within 12 months of the date on which the report of the previous review was laid before the House of Commons.”—(Anneliese Dodds.)

This amendment requires an annual review of the revenue effects of this Schedule, in each year following the Schedule coming into force.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 18 and schedule 6 make amendments to ensure that DPT continues to prevent multinationals from pursuing aggressive tax planning that diverts profits, and hence tax, from the UK. I commend the clause and schedule to the Committee.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the clause and schedule. Colleagues will be well aware that DPT was introduced back in 2015, following enormous pressure from campaigners, the Public Accounts Committee and the Opposition to ensure that large, multinational companies pay their fair share of tax. DPT focuses on two forms of tax avoidance. The first is where

“a company with a UK taxable presence uses arrangements lacking economic substance to artificially divert profits from the UK.”

The second is where

“a person carries out activities in the UK for a foreign company that are designed to avoid creating a Permanent Establishment”

and becoming taxable through that route.

As the Minister set out, the Bill makes a number of changes to DPT. First, the changes attempt to ensure that the rules work more effectively to prevent avoidance arrangements giving rise to planning opportunities from October this year. The changes clarify that diverted profits will be taxed under only DPT or corporation tax from 1 April 2015 onwards; obviously, this is a retrospective tax.

The measures also extend to 38 months the period in which HMRC can issue a preliminary notice stating that it intends to apply DPT in the first category of cases —that is, where taxpayers are believed to be using arrangements lacking economic substance in order to expatriate profits. The Opposition will certainly support that change. As mentioned, however, the measures also extend very substantially—by 25%, from one year to 15 months—the review period for HMRC to work with a company to examine how much profit has been diverted.

Finally, the measures enable the amendment of corporate tax returns to include diverted profits during the first 12 months of the review period, and to allow the inclusion of diverted profits on the corporation tax return of the affected party for the first 12 months of the review period, in cases where a foreign company is believed to have attempted to avoid permanent establishment through artificial methods.

We have tabled a number of amendments to clause 18 and schedule 6. Amendment 45, as was mentioned, would require a public register of firms that have paid the diverted profits tax. Colleagues will remember, I am sure, that when that tax was introduced, it was widely described by the Government as a Google tax. Indeed, journalists were briefed by Government spokespeople using that term. The Minister has argued that DPT is not targeted at any particular sector; that is not how it was described and promoted at the time.

It is not clear to the Opposition whether Google has actually been covered by DPT. Back in January 2016, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer maintained that DPT provided the context for HMRC’s £130 million settlement with Google. Of course, that was announced to great fanfare, but very quickly there was a lot of concern that it was actually a very poor deal for taxpayers, because Google’s settlement with HMRC in January 2016 covered a whole 10 years, from 2005 to 2015, and constituted £117 million in back taxes and £13 million in interest. Fairly obviously, it was not the Google tax, DPT, that led to that settlement, because it had applied for only a twentieth of the time for which the settlement was achieved—just six months of that time. Also, the so-called Google tax had not led to any appreciable unwinding of complex tax structures. Of course, we need to put the £130 million settlement in the context of the then £4.6 billion-worth of UK sales by Google. I appreciate that that is comparing apples with pears, but it does put things in context.

In concluding the deal, HMRC accepted Google’s claim that its UK staff only supported their colleagues in Ireland—something that the PAC discussed at length and which I will not go into here. Suffice it to say that it is contested. Interestingly, that great radical Rupert Murdoch stated that the tax payments by Google were

“token amounts for PR purposes”.

Our amendment is designed to shine a light on which taxpayers have actually been subject to this tax, given the way in which it was presented when it was introduced, so that the public can judge its effectiveness for themselves. It would also provide a first step towards the country-by-country reporting for multinational companies that the Government were forced to accept as a possibility through an amendment to the 2016 Finance Bill, although they have not yet enacted that. They have the power to enact it through that amendment, but have not yet gone ahead with it. This amendment would at least take us a step along the way.

Amendment 40 would require a review of the diverted profits tax against its stated aims; that would include the extent to which it has raised revenue for the Exchequer. It is very similar to amendment 37 from the SNP. The Minister intimated that the revenues coming from DPT were higher than forecast, and that does appear to be the case, but it would be helpful if the Minister could delineate for us the different components of his Department’s assessment of the value of DPT. That is because, as I understand it, there are two components to its reported value: the direct tax take from DPT itself and the additional tax resulting from altered company tax practices. It is not clear to me whether that is just about the extra corporation tax or something else, so perhaps the Minister can illuminate it for us.

It would also be helpful if we could understand why there has been such an increase in the projected number of taxpayers coming under the measure. Anecdotally, many tax practitioners have told me that they do not think that it is necessarily covering the very biggest firms—many had anticipated that it would do so—particularly digital firms, but it is covering a large number of other firms. To that extent, it seems to be quite different from the initial prospectus, so can the Minister explain why, on this issue, George Osborne seems to have got things wrong? I admit that that was not an isolated occurrence, but it would be helpful if the Minister could explain it.

George Osborne, when DPT was introduced, said that it would also act as a catalyst for the restructuring of companies that were seeking to avoid permanent establishment in the UK and to claim false economic substance in low or no-tax jurisdictions to avoid UK corporation tax. We have not, from what I can see, had any evaluation of DPT’s impact in connection to that. I have not heard of many significant changes in corporate structure that can be specifically attributed to DPT. They may well exist, but we need to know about them in order to have an appropriate understanding of the efficacy or otherwise of the measure. That is what is called for in amendment 41. Related to discussion around our previous amendment, if increased tax from alterations in corporate structure is counted as part of the revenue from DPT, surely it is important for us to know what those alterations in corporate structure are in the first place. I think that would be helpful for the Committee.

Amendment 42 requires a review of DPT’s effectiveness as against the Government’s proposed digital services tax—DPT versus DST, as it were. Colleagues will, of course, be aware that DST has not been included in the Bill; it is only being consulted on. Strangely, at the same time as saying that that tax would impel other countries to implement similar provisions by starting a conversation on the merits of novel approaches to taxing digital giants, the tax includes some weaknesses that, it seems to me, do not apply to the European approach. It is set at 2% of revenues, rather than at 3%. It also includes the so-called safe harbour provision, which means that it is not paid by companies that do not indicate that they are making profits. That is exactly how many of them have avoided corporation tax, so how such a measure would catch many of those companies is unclear to me.

Our amendment would ask for an explicit comparison of DPT with DST. That is surely necessary given that they embody fundamentally different assumptions about the appropriate basis for corporate taxation. DPT assumes that transfer pricing is still alive and kicking, and a tenable basis for assigning taxing rights, while DST obviously uses a particular form of revenue as the taxable quantum, rather than profit. That is surely necessary in a context where there are many discussions ongoing at an international level about the appropriate basis for corporate taxation, including whether there should be a greater focus on value derived from branding. I understand that has some support on the US side.

I will briefly describe our two additional amendments in the three minutes that remain. Amendment 46 removes the extension of the review period during which the taxpayer can make representations to HMRC about why its assessment is invalid. Despite what the Minister said, I do not think that we have been provided with sufficient evidence about why that is necessary. If there is a problem with companies providing evidence towards the end of that review period and HMRC is having difficulty crunching that evidence, surely it would be more helpful for those companies to be required to provide the evidence a bit earlier in the process. If evidence being provided later on in the existing review period was causing problems for HMRC, surely that would be one way of dealing with it.

Finally, as the Minister mentioned, amendment 43 would consider the impact of introducing the measures within this specific time period as against another. Again, we feel that we have not been provided with a sufficiently clear rationale for the timing, so it would be helpful to learn more about the implementation schedule set out within the Bill.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Craig Whittaker.)