Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords] (Sixth sitting)

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Public Bill Committees

We have been shown time and time again a whole range of areas of corporate failure, whether that is health and safety, sexual harassment or other areas where there have been problems in a minority of corporations. We have found out frequently that when the incentives and the authority lines point in a direction that contradicts those other values, we can have all the compliance and safeguarding officers in the world, but we will not get the change we need in culture and action unless responsibility and authority are at the top. That is why we are pushing new clauses 15 and 9.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I do not want to add a huge amount, but I very much welcome the new clause. As the hon. Member for Oxford East said, there is a big issue of incentive and authority for organisations, particularly for those that facilitate the formation and operation of Scottish limited partnerships in the private fund sector.

There has to be an effort to ensure that compliance with the rules is extended as far as possible. For example, a legal firm may be asked to register an SLP to get it up and going, and operating, but if no buck stops with it, there is no punishment for not ensuring that the SLPs are operating as we would want them to. For example, if a firm asks its client to register a person of significant control, and the client does not do so, where is the incentive for that firm to remove that client altogether? The firm has to decide for itself whether the cost of reputational damage from being named in the press is enough. That is the balance that it has at the moment. It is not obliged not to have that SLP within its client base. There is no comeback and no consequence.

There needs to be some means by which the firm is forced to do something to put that right. If the SLPs under its umbrella do not register a person of significant control, and continue not to register them, there is no fine to that legal firm, as I understand it. The SLP may face a fine—I am trying to get to the bottom of how many fines have been issued to those who have not registered a person of significant control—but there is no comeback to the legal firm, other than potential reputational damage.

The Government need to think about where the buck really stops in these arrangements , and this type of new clause would put some emphasis on the firm to do something about failing to prevent money laundering, rather than allowing things to continue as they are. As I understand it, there is no comeback at the moment to the legal firm that is protecting the SLPs underneath its umbrella.

[John Glen]

I undertake to address the points raised by the hon. Member for Oxford East. I will come to the point about the directors’ responsibility in my scripted remarks and also to the issue of what provision the fines were imposed under.

On the specific question the hon. Lady asked, the Ministry of Justice’s call for evidence considered a wide range of reforms to the law relating to corporate liability for economic crime. That is against a backdrop of already significant reform in this area in recent years, including the Bribery Act 2010, the Criminal Finances Act 2017 and the introduction of deferred prosecution agreements, which the Government would contend have strengthened the UK’s defences against corporate criminality. The Ministry of Justice is carefully considering the responses received to the call for evidence and is analysing the impacts of the Government’s range of recent reforms in this area. It will respond to its call for evidence in due course. I do not have a specific timetable, but that is the best information I can give the hon. Lady.

New clauses 9 and 15 seek to create a corporate criminal offence of failure to prevent money laundering, with an obligation on the Secretary of State to submit a disqualification order to the court against directors of a company found guilty of such an offence without having adequate anti-money laundering procedures in place. New clause 9 provides that a company or partnership is guilty of a criminal offence where the company’s employee, agent or other service provider commits one of the substantive money laundering offences in part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The relevant company would have a defence if it could prove that it had adequate procedures in place to prevent its employees or agents from committing such an offence.

The offence is not necessary in view of the extensive reforms to the UK’s anti-money laundering regime that the Government have put in place. The proposed offence is substantively applied to firms that are regulated for anti-money laundering purposes by part 2 of the Money Laundering Regulations 2017. Those require that regulated firms have policies, controls and procedures to mitigate and manage risks of money laundering and terrorist financing. The Government have legislated to require that these policies, controls and procedures are proportionate with regard to the size and nature of the firm’s business and proved by the firm’s senior management. Failure to comply with these requirements is a criminal offence in itself.

The Financial Conduct Authority and other supervisors are additionally able to take action against firms if their measures to counter money laundering are deficient. As was touched on in our exchange earlier, recent regulatory penalties related to firms’ anti-money laundering weaknesses include fines of £163 million for Deutsche Bank in January 2017 and £72 million for Barclays Bank in November 2015. They were a consequence of failures in anti-money laundering measures under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

The new clause also seeks to address challenges that have arisen in apportioning responsibility for corporate failings. Within the financial services sector, that has been addressed through the senior managers regime, which was introduced after the financial crisis. Banks are now required to ensure that a named senior manager has unequivocal responsibility for overseeing the firm’s efforts to counter financial crime. That ensures that firms and individuals can be held to account for failing to put proper systems in place to prevent financial crime. If a relevant firm breaches its anti-money laundering obligations, the FCA can take action against a senior manager if it can prove that they did not take such steps as a person in their position can reasonably have been expected to take to avoid the breach occurring. The enforcement action includes fines and disbarment from undertaking regulated activities. The Government have legislated to extend the senior managers regime to apply across all financial services firms. That will be implemented in due course, and will further the Government’s reform programme. All those requirements are additional to the substantive money laundering offences in the Proceeds of Crime Act, such as entering into arrangements that facilitate the use of criminal property, which apply to any individual or company.

As hon. Members know, the Government have previously introduced two similar offences: the failure to prevent bribery, in 2010, and the failure to prevent the facilitation of UK and foreign tax evasion, in 2017. They are structured in a similar way to the proposed new clause, but they were introduced following clear evidence of gaps in the relevant legal frameworks that were limiting the bringing of effective and dissuasive enforcement proceedings. It is right that the offences that we have already established apply to legal entities, regardless of whether they operate in the regulated sector.

The situation in relation to money laundering is very different. The international standard is set by the Financial Action Task Force, which has been referred to numerous times in the Committee’s discussions. The UK’s money laundering regulations apply to banks, financial institutions, certain professional services firms and other types of entity, and act as gatekeepers to the financial system. As I have said, such firms are already required to have policies and procedures in place to prevent their services from being misused for money laundering.

Subsection (6) of new clause 9 would require all companies, regardless of whether they are incorporated, to have procedures in place to prevent persons connected to them from laundering money. The Government do not believe that that would be appropriate. It would risk making non-regulated firms liable for the actions of their regulated professional advisers. Instead, responsibility for anti-money laundering compliance should rest in the regulated sector, as is currently the case. The new clause would not go beyond the existing regulatory framework in that area, and it would blur where responsibility should lie for anti-money laundering compliance. Therefore, I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Oxford East to withdraw the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

I support the new clauses proposed by the hon. Member for Oxford East. They flag up a huge loophole in the anti-money laundering regime, which is the inability of Companies House to do anything about what comes through its door. By not acting on information, and expecting company formation agents to behave in a different way from the way the Government’s own agency behaves, the Government become complicit in the money laundering that is clearly going on through companies that are registered for only £12.

The situation is curious. Last week I sat on a delegated legislation Committee that discussed passport fees and the need for full cost recovery of those fees by the Government because the Passport Agency wants to ensure that it is not making a loss. There is an argument about whether passports are too expensive, which I think they are, but it costs £12 for the registration of a company. If Companies House is not getting full-cost recovery for that, and that is the reason for not carrying out the due diligence that ought to be done on anti-money laundering, that is an argument to find a reasonable cost of registration that would allow Companies House to operate, make money and have sufficient funds to carry out the due diligence it ought to. If there is an incentive not to play by the rules, and the Government are incentivising that through the operation of its own agency, that is nonsense. That is highlighted in Global Witness’s “The Idiot’s Guide to Money Laundering”:

“Step 4: open your company direct with the corporate registry—they don’t do any checks on you!”

It seems ludicrous that the Government are going to encourage agents who want to set up companies for people to do that and go through the anti-money laundering things that they have to do, but the Government are not enforcing that. That seems absolutely ludicrous. I cannot for the life of me think how the Government will defend that unjustifiable loophole.

Transparency International reported that in the UK last year, 251,628 companies were created with no checks being made on the person setting up the company or their source of wealth. It is a scandal that these companies can be set up, facilitated by the Government, because Companies House has to accept their documents in good faith without doing due diligence checks that we would expect of other agents. If they are not going to support the new clauses, I urge the Government to propose a measure themselves, because this simply cannot continue.

[John Glen]

The new clauses are broadly similar in purpose and intention. Each would expand the role that Companies House plays in relation to anti-money laundering checks, whether by conducting due diligence directly, confirming that due diligence has been carried out, or confirming that a company seeking to be incorporated has a UK bank account.

I will turn to the practical difficulties of these proposals in a moment, but the first point to make in connection with each is that the UK’s anti-money laundering regime is undergoing an assessment by the Financial Action Task Force. The FATF is the international standard setter in this area and will report publicly later this year on its findings. The report will consider matters, including the effectiveness of how the UK prevents the misuse of legal persons, such as companies, for money laundering purposes. Hon. Members will appreciate that this report will greatly inform the future of the UK’s anti-money laundering regime, including in relation to how we can best prevent the misuse of legal entities, some of which have been described in the course of this debate.

Once the FATF has reported, the Government will actively consider its conclusions, including those in relation to any areas in which the UK’s anti-money laundering framework can be improved. These new clauses pre-empt the review process already under way. It would be more sensible to allow the review to identify specific areas where action is necessary before making further changes to our AML regime.

New clause 10 would require anti-money laundering checks to be undertaken before any UK company can be incorporated by preventing the registrar of companies from registering a company unless she is satisfied that such checks have been carried out. It then says that the registrar is entitled to accept the anti-money laundering registration number of the UK body that has submitted the application as evidence that such checks have taken place. The effect would be to require all incorporations to be made through a UK body regulated for anti-money laundering purposes. This would prevent people from applying directly to Companies House to register and set up their own business; any person seeking to set up a business would be required to use the services of a professional agent that is also regulated for anti-money laundering purposes, and pay for those services, which will in turn increase the cost of setting up businesses.

The proposed new clause assumes that all bad companies are set up directly with Companies House, and that only companies set up through the agency of a regulated professional can be trusted. That is simply not true. Only the simplest companies—those using standard-form constitutions—can be set up directly with Companies House online in the way described by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central. Typically they are self-standing, family-run and family-operated businesses. More complex corporate structures will, in contrast, frequently be established through trust or company service providers. The UK’s national risk assessment of money laundering and terrorist financing noted last year that

“While companies can be registered directly with Companies House, criminals continue to make use of third party TCSPs, to establish the structures within which illegitimate activity subsequently takes place.”

The fact that TCSPs are legally required to conduct customer due diligence does not in and of itself solve the problem. The new clause would therefore impose an across-the-board administrative burden on individuals seeking to establish companies, without adding any significant new obstacles to money laundering. Companies incorporated directly through Companies House are overwhelmingly likely to interact with the UK regulated sector, and so face anti-money laundering checks either by having a UK bank account or through having a UK accountant.

We discussed in the previous debate the 22 different regimes, and this speaks to the necessity for some degree of complexity to minimise the risks as far as possible. New clauses 11 and 12 are similar in outcome to new clause 10: they would require company formation agents—defined for these purposes as including the UK registrar of companies at Companies House—to conduct customer due diligence to establish the identity and risk profile of all beneficial owners of such companies registered at Companies House. The key difference is the reclassification of Companies House, which would now be required to deliver its statutory duties as if it were a private sector business. The accompanying explanatory statement suggests that these clauses will identify the beneficial owners of a company and make information held at Companies House more accurate. Although similar to the proposed new clause 10, these new clauses would go further in imposing expansive new obligations upon Companies House, requiring significant changes to the UK company law system.

Given the overlap with the lead new clause group, I will focus on the most novel element: the proposal that Companies House be treated as a company formation agent. Since the registrar of companies was first created, it has been required to accept any application that is validly and correctly submitted, and to duly incorporate the company as requested. Companies House does not help customers through this process, and is responsible solely for conducting the process of company incorporation. Company formation agents, known as TCSPs, are entirely distinct from Companies House. They are already subject to due diligence obligations through the Money Laundering Regulations 2017, and these extend to being required to terminate any existing business relationship when they are unable to meet their due diligence obligations. In contrast, Companies House has no legal right to refuse or decline a request to incorporate a company if the application is valid, and therefore it does not have the ability to decline a business relationship in the way that TCSPs must when they cannot discharge their due diligence obligations. If accepted, these amendments would essentially require fundamental reform of the Companies Act 2006.

To emphasise the scale of that proposed reform, 3.9 million companies are currently registered at Companies House and approximately 600,000 new companies register each year. The impact on resource to carry out due diligence on that number of companies would be considerable. The burdens and cost would fall on those 3.9 million companies, and specifically on the vast majority of legitimate companies, many of which are very small businesses. They would be forced to pay to duplicate the cost of due diligence checks that are already conducted by banks and other regulated professionals. The overall cost to the UK economy could run into hundreds of millions of pounds each year.

New clause 13 would amend part 24 of the Companies Act so as to require UK companies to establish a UK bank account and evidence that to Companies House on an annual basis or pay a fee or financial penalty. As with other new clauses in this group, new clause 13 will not achieve its stated intention. The wider purpose behind that part of the Act is to provide a simple mechanism for companies to confirm that corporate information registered with Companies House, as required under other obligations, is accurate and up to date in relation to company share capital, business activities and the address of a company’s registered office.

That is not to say that the new clause’s underlying principle does not merit further consideration. Evidence of a UK bank account is intended to demonstrate that a company has been through proper money laundering checks by a UK supervising body related to the financial activities of that company. However, the practical implications need careful consideration. To make the proposal operational, Companies House would require new systems with access to UK and international banking information. The costs associated with the development and operation of such systems would inevitably be large and would need to be recovered from UK businesses. Once again, that would necessarily establish a new reporting burden that would essentially target the overwhelming majority of law-abiding UK businesses.

The new clause suggests that companies that cannot provide evidence that they have a UK bank account would be liable to a fee, although that could better be characterised as a penalty—its purpose is not specified. If it is intended to incentivise companies that are established to launder money to open a UK bank account, it would need to be set sufficiently high to achieve that objective, which would be disproportionate to the notional offence of not providing evidence of a UK bank account.

The Government are already active in that sphere. Under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, regulated bodies such as banks are obliged to carry out CDD checks on their customers on an ongoing basis. That is a rich field of data, and the regulated sector is already closely engaged with UK law enforcement to identify and report suspicious behaviour. In parallel, Companies House has an extensive outreach programme to the regulated sector to promote use of its data and encourage bodies to report possible errors back to it.

To sum up, a simple demonstration of a bank account is a blunt instrument. As drafted, the new clause simply adds a burden to UK companies to report more information. We should not proceed down that path without being much clearer that the information we require them to disclose is valuable, that it is necessary and that it cannot be achieved by other less burdensome means. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Oxford East to withdraw the amendment.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Public Bill Committees

We have been shown time and time again a whole range of areas of corporate failure, whether that is health and safety, sexual harassment or other areas where there have been problems in a minority of corporations. We have found out frequently that when the incentives and the authority lines point in a direction that contradicts those other values, we can have all the compliance and safeguarding officers in the world, but we will not get the change we need in culture and action unless responsibility and authority are at the top. That is why we are pushing new clauses 15 and 9.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I do not want to add a huge amount, but I very much welcome the new clause. As the hon. Member for Oxford East said, there is a big issue of incentive and authority for organisations, particularly for those that facilitate the formation and operation of Scottish limited partnerships in the private fund sector.

There has to be an effort to ensure that compliance with the rules is extended as far as possible. For example, a legal firm may be asked to register an SLP to get it up and going, and operating, but if no buck stops with it, there is no punishment for not ensuring that the SLPs are operating as we would want them to. For example, if a firm asks its client to register a person of significant control, and the client does not do so, where is the incentive for that firm to remove that client altogether? The firm has to decide for itself whether the cost of reputational damage from being named in the press is enough. That is the balance that it has at the moment. It is not obliged not to have that SLP within its client base. There is no comeback and no consequence.

There needs to be some means by which the firm is forced to do something to put that right. If the SLPs under its umbrella do not register a person of significant control, and continue not to register them, there is no fine to that legal firm, as I understand it. The SLP may face a fine—I am trying to get to the bottom of how many fines have been issued to those who have not registered a person of significant control—but there is no comeback to the legal firm, other than potential reputational damage.

The Government need to think about where the buck really stops in these arrangements , and this type of new clause would put some emphasis on the firm to do something about failing to prevent money laundering, rather than allowing things to continue as they are. As I understand it, there is no comeback at the moment to the legal firm that is protecting the SLPs underneath its umbrella.

[John Glen]

I undertake to address the points raised by the hon. Member for Oxford East. I will come to the point about the directors’ responsibility in my scripted remarks and also to the issue of what provision the fines were imposed under.

On the specific question the hon. Lady asked, the Ministry of Justice’s call for evidence considered a wide range of reforms to the law relating to corporate liability for economic crime. That is against a backdrop of already significant reform in this area in recent years, including the Bribery Act 2010, the Criminal Finances Act 2017 and the introduction of deferred prosecution agreements, which the Government would contend have strengthened the UK’s defences against corporate criminality. The Ministry of Justice is carefully considering the responses received to the call for evidence and is analysing the impacts of the Government’s range of recent reforms in this area. It will respond to its call for evidence in due course. I do not have a specific timetable, but that is the best information I can give the hon. Lady.

New clauses 9 and 15 seek to create a corporate criminal offence of failure to prevent money laundering, with an obligation on the Secretary of State to submit a disqualification order to the court against directors of a company found guilty of such an offence without having adequate anti-money laundering procedures in place. New clause 9 provides that a company or partnership is guilty of a criminal offence where the company’s employee, agent or other service provider commits one of the substantive money laundering offences in part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The relevant company would have a defence if it could prove that it had adequate procedures in place to prevent its employees or agents from committing such an offence.

The offence is not necessary in view of the extensive reforms to the UK’s anti-money laundering regime that the Government have put in place. The proposed offence is substantively applied to firms that are regulated for anti-money laundering purposes by part 2 of the Money Laundering Regulations 2017. Those require that regulated firms have policies, controls and procedures to mitigate and manage risks of money laundering and terrorist financing. The Government have legislated to require that these policies, controls and procedures are proportionate with regard to the size and nature of the firm’s business and proved by the firm’s senior management. Failure to comply with these requirements is a criminal offence in itself.

The Financial Conduct Authority and other supervisors are additionally able to take action against firms if their measures to counter money laundering are deficient. As was touched on in our exchange earlier, recent regulatory penalties related to firms’ anti-money laundering weaknesses include fines of £163 million for Deutsche Bank in January 2017 and £72 million for Barclays Bank in November 2015. They were a consequence of failures in anti-money laundering measures under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

The new clause also seeks to address challenges that have arisen in apportioning responsibility for corporate failings. Within the financial services sector, that has been addressed through the senior managers regime, which was introduced after the financial crisis. Banks are now required to ensure that a named senior manager has unequivocal responsibility for overseeing the firm’s efforts to counter financial crime. That ensures that firms and individuals can be held to account for failing to put proper systems in place to prevent financial crime. If a relevant firm breaches its anti-money laundering obligations, the FCA can take action against a senior manager if it can prove that they did not take such steps as a person in their position can reasonably have been expected to take to avoid the breach occurring. The enforcement action includes fines and disbarment from undertaking regulated activities. The Government have legislated to extend the senior managers regime to apply across all financial services firms. That will be implemented in due course, and will further the Government’s reform programme. All those requirements are additional to the substantive money laundering offences in the Proceeds of Crime Act, such as entering into arrangements that facilitate the use of criminal property, which apply to any individual or company.

As hon. Members know, the Government have previously introduced two similar offences: the failure to prevent bribery, in 2010, and the failure to prevent the facilitation of UK and foreign tax evasion, in 2017. They are structured in a similar way to the proposed new clause, but they were introduced following clear evidence of gaps in the relevant legal frameworks that were limiting the bringing of effective and dissuasive enforcement proceedings. It is right that the offences that we have already established apply to legal entities, regardless of whether they operate in the regulated sector.

The situation in relation to money laundering is very different. The international standard is set by the Financial Action Task Force, which has been referred to numerous times in the Committee’s discussions. The UK’s money laundering regulations apply to banks, financial institutions, certain professional services firms and other types of entity, and act as gatekeepers to the financial system. As I have said, such firms are already required to have policies and procedures in place to prevent their services from being misused for money laundering.

Subsection (6) of new clause 9 would require all companies, regardless of whether they are incorporated, to have procedures in place to prevent persons connected to them from laundering money. The Government do not believe that that would be appropriate. It would risk making non-regulated firms liable for the actions of their regulated professional advisers. Instead, responsibility for anti-money laundering compliance should rest in the regulated sector, as is currently the case. The new clause would not go beyond the existing regulatory framework in that area, and it would blur where responsibility should lie for anti-money laundering compliance. Therefore, I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Oxford East to withdraw the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

I support the new clauses proposed by the hon. Member for Oxford East. They flag up a huge loophole in the anti-money laundering regime, which is the inability of Companies House to do anything about what comes through its door. By not acting on information, and expecting company formation agents to behave in a different way from the way the Government’s own agency behaves, the Government become complicit in the money laundering that is clearly going on through companies that are registered for only £12.

The situation is curious. Last week I sat on a delegated legislation Committee that discussed passport fees and the need for full cost recovery of those fees by the Government because the Passport Agency wants to ensure that it is not making a loss. There is an argument about whether passports are too expensive, which I think they are, but it costs £12 for the registration of a company. If Companies House is not getting full-cost recovery for that, and that is the reason for not carrying out the due diligence that ought to be done on anti-money laundering, that is an argument to find a reasonable cost of registration that would allow Companies House to operate, make money and have sufficient funds to carry out the due diligence it ought to. If there is an incentive not to play by the rules, and the Government are incentivising that through the operation of their own agency, that is nonsense. That is highlighted in Global Witness’s “The Idiot’s Guide to Money Laundering”:

“Step 4: open your company direct with the corporate registry—they don’t do any checks on you!”

It seems ludicrous that the Government are going to encourage agents who want to set up companies for people to do that and go through the anti-money laundering things that they have to do, but the Government are not enforcing that. That seems absolutely ludicrous. I cannot for the life of me think how the Government will defend that unjustifiable loophole.

Transparency International reported that in the UK last year, 251,628 companies were created with no checks being made on the person setting up the company or their source of wealth. It is a scandal that these companies can be set up, facilitated by the Government, because Companies House has to accept their documents in good faith without doing due diligence checks that we would expect of other agents. If they are not going to support the new clauses, I urge the Government to propose a measure themselves, because this simply cannot continue.

[John Glen]

The new clauses are broadly similar in purpose and intention. Each would expand the role that Companies House plays in relation to anti-money laundering checks, whether by conducting due diligence directly, confirming that due diligence has been carried out, or confirming that a company seeking to be incorporated has a UK bank account.

I will turn to the practical difficulties of these proposals in a moment, but the first point to make in connection with each is that the UK’s anti-money laundering regime is undergoing an assessment by the Financial Action Task Force. The FATF is the international standard setter in this area and will report publicly later this year on its findings. The report will consider matters, including the effectiveness of how the UK prevents the misuse of legal persons, such as companies, for money laundering purposes. Hon. Members will appreciate that this report will greatly inform the future of the UK’s anti-money laundering regime, including in relation to how we can best prevent the misuse of legal entities, some of which have been described in the course of this debate.

Once the FATF has reported, the Government will actively consider its conclusions, including those in relation to any areas in which the UK’s anti-money laundering framework can be improved. These new clauses pre-empt the review process already under way. It would be more sensible to allow the review to identify specific areas where action is necessary before making further changes to our AML regime.

New clause 10 would require anti-money laundering checks to be undertaken before any UK company can be incorporated by preventing the registrar of companies from registering a company unless she is satisfied that such checks have been carried out. It then says that the registrar is entitled to accept the anti-money laundering registration number of the UK body that has submitted the application as evidence that such checks have taken place. The effect would be to require all incorporations to be made through a UK body regulated for anti-money laundering purposes. This would prevent people from applying directly to Companies House to register and set up their own business; any person seeking to set up a business would be required to use the services of a professional agent that is also regulated for anti-money laundering purposes, and pay for those services, which will in turn increase the cost of setting up businesses.

The proposed new clause assumes that all bad companies are set up directly with Companies House, and that only companies set up through the agency of a regulated professional can be trusted. That is simply not true. Only the simplest companies—those using standard-form constitutions—can be set up directly with Companies House online in the way described by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central. Typically they are self-standing, family-run and family-operated businesses. More complex corporate structures will, in contrast, frequently be established through trust or company service providers. The UK’s national risk assessment of money laundering and terrorist financing noted last year that

“While companies can be registered directly with Companies House, criminals continue to make use of third party TCSPs, to establish the structures within which illegitimate activity subsequently takes place.”

The fact that TCSPs are legally required to conduct customer due diligence does not in and of itself solve the problem. The new clause would therefore impose an across-the-board administrative burden on individuals seeking to establish companies, without adding any significant new obstacles to money laundering. Companies incorporated directly through Companies House are overwhelmingly likely to interact with the UK regulated sector, and so face anti-money laundering checks either by having a UK bank account or through having a UK accountant.

We discussed in the previous debate the 22 different regimes, and this speaks to the necessity for some degree of complexity to minimise the risks as far as possible. New clauses 11 and 12 are similar in outcome to new clause 10: they would require company formation agents—defined for these purposes as including the UK registrar of companies at Companies House—to conduct customer due diligence to establish the identity and risk profile of all beneficial owners of such companies registered at Companies House. The key difference is the reclassification of Companies House, which would now be required to deliver its statutory duties as if it were a private sector business. The accompanying explanatory statement suggests that these clauses will identify the beneficial owners of a company and make information held at Companies House more accurate. Although similar to the proposed new clause 10, these new clauses would go further in imposing expansive new obligations upon Companies House, requiring significant changes to the UK company law system.

Given the overlap with the lead new clause in the group, I will focus on the most novel element: the proposal that Companies House be treated as a company formation agent. Since the registrar of companies was first created, it has been required to accept any application that is validly and correctly submitted, and to duly incorporate the company as requested. Companies House does not help customers through this process, and is responsible solely for conducting the process of company incorporation. Company formation agents, known as TCSPs, are entirely distinct from Companies House. They are already subject to due diligence obligations through the Money Laundering Regulations 2017, and these extend to being required to terminate any existing business relationship when they are unable to meet their due diligence obligations. In contrast, Companies House has no legal right to refuse or decline a request to incorporate a company if the application is valid, and therefore it does not have the ability to decline a business relationship in the way that TCSPs must when they cannot discharge their due diligence obligations. If accepted, these amendments would essentially require fundamental reform of the Companies Act 2006.

To emphasise the scale of that proposed reform, 3.9 million companies are currently registered at Companies House and approximately 600,000 new companies register each year. The impact on resource to carry out due diligence on that number of companies would be considerable. The burdens and cost would fall on those 3.9 million companies, and specifically on the vast majority of legitimate companies, many of which are very small businesses. They would be forced to pay to duplicate the cost of due diligence checks that are already conducted by banks and other regulated professionals. The overall cost to the UK economy could run into hundreds of millions of pounds each year.

New clause 13 would amend part 24 of the Companies Act so as to require UK companies to establish a UK bank account and evidence that to Companies House on an annual basis or pay a fee or financial penalty. As with other new clauses in this group, new clause 13 will not achieve its stated intention. The wider purpose behind that part of the Act is to provide a simple mechanism for companies to confirm that corporate information registered with Companies House, as required under other obligations, is accurate and up to date in relation to company share capital, business activities and the address of a company’s registered office.

That is not to say that the new clause’s underlying principle does not merit further consideration. Evidence of a UK bank account is intended to demonstrate that a company has been through proper money laundering checks by a UK supervising body related to the financial activities of that company. However, the practical implications need careful consideration. To make the proposal operational, Companies House would require new systems with access to UK and international banking information. The costs associated with the development and operation of such systems would inevitably be large and would need to be recovered from UK businesses. Once again, that would necessarily establish a new reporting burden that would essentially target the overwhelming majority of law-abiding UK businesses.

The new clause suggests that companies that cannot provide evidence that they have a UK bank account would be liable to a fee, although that could better be characterised as a penalty—its purpose is not specified. If it is intended to incentivise companies that are established to launder money to open a UK bank account, it would need to be set sufficiently high to achieve that objective, which would be disproportionate to the notional offence of not providing evidence of a UK bank account.

The Government are already active in that sphere. Under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, regulated bodies such as banks are obliged to carry out CDD checks on their customers on an ongoing basis. That is a rich field of data, and the regulated sector is already closely engaged with UK law enforcement to identify and report suspicious behaviour. In parallel, Companies House has an extensive outreach programme to the regulated sector to promote use of its data and encourage bodies to report possible errors back to it.

To sum up, a simple demonstration of a bank account is a blunt instrument. As drafted, the new clause simply adds a burden to UK companies to report more information. We should not proceed down that path without being much clearer that the information we require them to disclose is valuable, that it is necessary and that it cannot be achieved by other less burdensome means. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Oxford East to withdraw the amendment.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords] (Fourth sitting)

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Sir Alan Duncan]

The clause enables us to exercise those powers, but we cannot at this stage provide the date specificity that the hon. Lady is seeking, because that is a matter of negotiation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 30 to 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34

court reviews: further provision

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

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I have a quick query about the clause raised in a briefing by the Law Society of Scotland about the extension of the measure to Scotland. Will the Minister tell us a wee bit more about that? Will he also tell us what consultation was done with Law Officers in Scotland?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

The purpose of the clause is to ensure that those acting in good faith and in compliance with this legislation are properly protected from damages being awarded against them. The clause will not protect individuals if they are found to have been negligent or to have acted in bad faith. The measure is aligned with existing EU law and is necessary to ensure, for example, that enforcement officers acting under the law may perform their duties without fear of destitution.

The clause also restricts the circumstances in which the court may award damages against the state. Sanctions are imposed to counter unacceptable behaviour. They may need to be applied quickly and in situations in which there is incomplete information. However, the clause will still allow damages awards where there is evidence of negligence or of acts in bad faith. In practice, therefore, the clause restricts damages awards only in cases where the Government act in accordance with the information available to them and lawfully apply a sanction on the basis of sufficient evidence.

If damages awards were allowed in those circumstances, applying sanctions would carry a very significant risk to the public purse. Indeed, it is likely that the larger and more important the sanction target, the higher the financial risk to the taxpayer. It is therefore important to allow the Government to respond swiftly to developing situations and to protect the taxpayer to restrict the availability of damages as a remedy in the specific circumstances of negligence or acts of bad faith.

There was consultation before the Bill. As a piece of legislation that covers the whole of the UK, we believe that the powers should be as consistent as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 35 and 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37

Guidance about regulations under section 1

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

The amendments relate to the importance of having guidance. There is considerable concern in the voluntary and financial sectors that the regulations as provided for under clause 36—

“an appropriate Minister may make regulations”—

are a piece of volunteerism and not an obligation on the Minister. That is causing some anxiety and confusion among those actors who have to implement the sanctions, whether NGOs or the financial sector. I will give a slightly more detailed description of this, because it is a bit complicated.

Last year Chatham House looked at the issue in some detail. It concluded that a number of UN Security Council sanctions regimes authorise the imposition of targeted sanctions against non-state armed group parties to armed conflicts. Of particular relevance to humanitarian action are financial sanctions such as asset freezes, which, among other things, require member states to ensure that funds, financial assets or economic resources are not made available to or for the benefit of designated entities. Asset freezes can be problematic for humanitarian action. There is a risk that the obligation not to make assets available to designated groups will be interpreted as covering incidental payments that must be made to such groups—for road tolls or locally purchased fuel, for example—so that humanitarian relief reaches civilians in need. It may also be interpreted as covering humanitarian goods or equipment that are diverted to such groups or otherwise benefit them, directly or indirectly. The scope of potential liability for violating asset freezes is very broad, and no intent or knowledge is required for that to be an offence, which is harsher than the bar for other kinds of breaches.

Although asset freezes are most likely to have an adverse impact on humanitarian action and, consequently, they have received the greatest attention, other forms of sanction may have a similar impact. In Syria, the problem was oil and petrol. Broader financial crimes risks arising from the Financial Action Task Force have also complicated humanitarian work.

The role of the UK financial sector in implementing sanctions is also relevant. It is not clear whether, when assessing the impact of sanctions, the UK intends to borrow the EU’s 50% rule for ownership and control. UK Finance states that

“the clarity of the ownership and control structures becomes of paramount importance and can be one of the most complex elements of ensuring sanctions compliance. If ownership or control is established in accordance with set criteria, the making available of funds or economic resources to non-listed legal persons or entities which are owned or controlled by a listed person or entity will in principle be considered a sanctions breach. The EU, and indeed many other jurisdictions, tend to apply a 50 percent rule and criterion to establish the ownership and control of an entity…if a listed individual has 50 percent or more ownership of a non-listed entity, EU persons/entities are prohibited from making available funds”.

There is no reference in the Bill to existing EU standards. The purpose of amendment 27 is to clarify that.

[Alison Thewliss]

I am concerned about the use of the word “may” in the clause, which states that the guidance “may include guidance” about certain things. I am concerned that that is not sufficiently well developed. I very much support the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland’s amendments, which would add a wee bit more clarity, detail and guidance. The clause is worth while, but the Government would do well to listen to the detail that she laid out.

[John Glen]

I am grateful for those questions. I am a little confused, because both hon. Members referred to clause 36, which states, “An appropriate Minister may,” but I thought these amendments were pursuant to clause 37, which states in subsection (1) that

“the appropriate Minister who made the regulations must issue guidance”.

I acknowledge that these amendments are about guidance. We have just agreed clause 36, which states, in subsection (1),

“An appropriate Minister may make regulations”.

The two amendments as tabled by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland are on clause 37, subsection (1) of which states

“the regulations must issue guidance”.

[Alison Thewliss]

We seem to be at cross purposes. The amendment is about the line further to that; subsection (2) states, further to “regulations must issue guidance”, that

“guidance may include guidance about”.

It is about the expansion of what that guidance may be.

[John Glen]

I am very grateful for that clarification. I hope that I will be able to address that in my remarks and give sufficient reassurance about the Government’s plan.

I should make clear from the outset that the Government are in favour of good guidance and we intend to produce it. It is in the Government’s interest to produce thorough guidance, to improve sanctions implementation and to ensure that sanctions can be enforced robustly. It was clearly set out that amendment 27 would require Government to provide guidance on the definition of ownership and control on the face of the Bill.

[John Glen]

I will address those points in my remarks, and I will be happy for the hon. Lady to come back if she is not content at the end.

Amendment 28 would broaden the scope of guidance to areas such as providing best practice on compliance with financial sanctions and establishing effective banking and payment corridors. As I said at the start, the Government are committed to producing clear and accessible guidance on sanctions implementation and enforcement. Clause 37 requires Ministers to issue guidance about any prohibitions and requirements imposed by sanctions regulations. There is already a mandatory requirement to provide comprehensive guidance for all those affected by sanctions and implementation.

The Government have been consulting extensively; across Whitehall, they have been meeting with NGOs and financial institutions that have asked for this guidance. I can reassure the Committee that we will give them what they have asked for. The Government do not believe that further amendments to clause 37 are needed to provide the type of guidance sought on “owned” and “controlled” in amendment 27. Where sanctions regulations contain prohibitions or requirements about entities that are owned and controlled by a designated person, we are already under a duty to issue guidance. I can reassure hon. Members that the Government already provide guidance on ownership and control and will continue doing so.

The additional guidance sought in amendment 28 would greatly extend the scope of the guidance to specific areas such as mechanisms to limit the impact of prohibitions and requirements on civilian and humanitarian activity, and establishing effective banking and payment corridors. Although I can understand the concerns of NGOs that lie behind this amendment, some of them clearly are beyond the remit of the Government to provide. For example, the Government do not have the powers to require banks to make payments on behalf of particular customer or to open new payment channels. Although I appreciate the spirit of the amendments, the Bill already caters for them in so far as it addresses matters within the Government’s control. Adding extra text to the Bill will only create confusion.

[Alison Thewliss]

Does the Minister not agree that it is in the public interest for the Government to support payment channels being created? If, for example, there is a Disasters Emergency Committee emergency appeal and the NGOs gather lots of funds, but those funds cannot reach the beneficiaries because there is no appropriate payment channel that gives everybody reassurance, surely it is in the Government’s interest to make that happen.

[John Glen]

I acknowledge what the hon. Lady says, but this is a non-exhaustive list. We intend to issue guidance on those issues listed in the Bill and more, as new issues evolve. We may also not need guidance in some areas that the sanctions do not cover. Where we are at cross purposes here is that people think the list is exhaustive when it is enabling and allows the Government to give the necessary guidance as required and as circumstances evolve.

We understand the concerns behind the amendments and have worked closely with NGOs to understand their needs, and we will continue to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39

Revocation and amendment of regulations under section 1

Amendment made: 6, in clause 39, page 30, line 24, leave out “(d)” and insert “(h)”—(Sir Alan Duncan.)

The provision amended here is a condition which applies to the power to amend regulations made under Clause 1 which state a purpose within Clause 1(2). The amendment expands the reference to Clause 1(2) so that it covers paragraphs (e) to (h) of Clause 1(2) (as well as paragraphs (a) to (d)).

Clause 39, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41

Power to amend Part 1 so as to authorise additional sanctions

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

[Alison Thewliss]

I want to express some concerns that I mentioned on Second Reading. The clause grants a lot of powers to Ministers. It allows them to amend the definition of sanctions. What I and the House of Lords Constitution Committee are concerned about is how that is then scrutinised by Parliament. I do not know whether the Minister has had any time to think about how it might work since Second Reading, but I am concerned that the legislation does not include a mechanism to look at sanctions that is similar to the one that exists in the European Scrutiny Committee. I would like a wee bit further clarity on whether the Government have plans to do that. If not, why not? What might the mechanism look like?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

The hon. Lady makes a perfectly fair request, and I think I can give her the reassurance she is seeking. Clause 41 enables an appropriate Minister to alter the legislation to introduce new types of sanctions measures where the UK has been subject to a UN or other international obligation to do so. That, I think, is the basis of her concern, but the power is for types of sanctions measures that have not previously been predicted and therefore cannot be and are not included in the Bill.

Common types of sanctions include asset freezes, travel bans, arms embargoes and prohibitions on aviation and maritime transport. These types of sanction are included in the Bill. A recent example of where the international community developed a new type of sanction was in the UN sanctions imposed in respect of North Korea. A recent UN resolution, which we are obliged to follow, requires that UN member states do not grant work permits to North Koreans, save where the UN agrees in advance on a case-by-case basis. That type of restriction did not exist prior to the resolution, and in the future there may be other unforeseen types of sanction that we would be under an obligation to introduce.

Under the powers in the clause, new types of sanction can be introduced only if the UK is, or has been, under a UN or other international obligation to impose them. The clause does not enable any modification to be made to the purposes for which sanctions can be made, as set out in clause 1(1) and (2). Changes will be made through regulations via the draft affirmative procedure, to ensure that Parliament is given a full role in scrutinising such changes.

The clause will ensure that we remain in close co-ordination with our international partners and can respond to changes in how sanctions are used as a foreign policy tool. That will help to maintain the UK’s leading role in this field and to address global challenges in collaboration with our partners.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 41 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43

Money laundering and terrorist financing etc

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that issue. It is particularly important that highly respected international bodies are above any insinuation or reproach. It may be that there has been confusion and a lack of knowledge about the provenance of some of those funds, but we need to remove from the system any opacity that could give that impression.

Operation Car Wash, which came up only last month—it is funny that all of these cases use the washing metaphor, but it is clearly because they are about washing out the provenance of money—covered Brazil and Peru. A giant construction firm in those countries paid £1 billion in bribes for, it appears, political purposes, and it appears that some of the payments went through SLPs. When we look at the evidence, we see we need to have a far stronger grip on this problem.

In early summer last year, legislation was introduced by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to try to regulate SLPs, under which they were to be forced to disclose their beneficial owners within the next 28 days or face daily fines. I am concerned that we still do not know how many such firms have genuinely indicated their beneficial owners—I hope we will hear from the Minister on that now. I am not privy to information on how many fines have been levied, and most commentators suggest that not a single business has been prosecuted. Perhaps some have been fined but not prosecuted. Perhaps we can find out more about that.

The Opposition are concerned that more action needs to be taken. To return to our earlier exchange, it is important that the UK Government take responsibility, because they have reserved powers over Scots corporate law. The Scottish Government have asked the UK Government to act, and it appears that previous actions to require more ownership information may not have gone far enough. I hope the Minister will enlighten us on that and support our amendment.

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Lady has already said much of what I was going to say, so I am sure that, if that I am a bit briefer, that will be okay with everyone. We have serious concern about SLPs, and the Bill provides an opportunity to do something about it. When we know there is a problem and an opportunity to put it right, it would be negligent of us as parliamentarians to look the other way.

I understand that, even in the new regime where people with significant control should be registered, up to December 127 or so SLPs had registered via law firms, but 489 had registered via anonymous mailbox addresses, which means that the people with significant control are not there, are barely identifiable and are very hard to trace. We know from recurring stories in The Herald worked on hard by David Leask and the researcher and expert in this field, Richard Smith, that such companies keep the issues, scandals and money laundering behind the scenes, and that it keeps going on. We therefore need to do everything we can in every area to tackle these problems.

There is the broader issue of SLP non-compliance and the inadequacies of Companies House, which we may speak about later in our proceedings. Not having a postcode when registering a company should be a pretty simple compliance issue—the process could be stopped at that point, never mind going into the more technical detail. We therefore need to look at this issue carefully. Never mind all the overseas territories; we are allowing it to happen here, in this country, behind mailboxes in Scotland. Frankly, that is unacceptable. We need to do something about it. If we continue to let it go, the problem will not go away.

We can talk about how we might go ahead with this issue in terms of enforcement, because other countries have tackled it. My colleague Roger Mullin and others have worked on it for many years, and we should take the opportunity to look at it here and now. If the Government are not willing to accept any of the amendments, I urge them to table their own and not to let the opportunity pass.

[John Glen]

I am grateful to both Front-Bench spokespeople for their speeches, and I will try to address the detail of the points they raised. The essence of the case made by the hon. Member for Oxford East was about whether the Bill covers SLPs. First, I draw attention to clause 9(5), which confirms that “person” includes individuals, corporate bodies, unincorporated bodies, organisations and

“any association or combination of persons.”

The Bill therefore does include SLPs, and we can make anti-money laundering provisions for them.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Helen Goodman]

I think this motion is an extraordinary development on the part of the Government Whip. I have been a Member of this House for 13 years, and I have never been in a Bill Committee where it has been suggested that we adjourn after three hours of sitting and half an hour of the second session. We have another 40 clauses, two schedules, 11 Government amendments and 36 Opposition amendments to consider. They all concern extremely important matters. I am frankly astonished that the Government think it acceptable to behave in this way on these issues.

We agreed yesterday to the Government reshuffling the order of the consideration of the clauses. We agreed to their request that we consider clause 1 after clause 18. We did not demur from that; we asked them why. I do not know whether they are trying to avoid that consideration, whether they are uncomfortable about the many speeches they heard on Second Reading on the Magnitsky amendments that we have tabled, or whether they want to avoid fully debating their record on anti-money laundering. Do they not want us to discuss the secret regimes of the overseas territories? Are they uncomfortable about what they have overseen with foreign corrupt oligarchs buying property in London? Do they wish to supress exposure of those matters? There is certainly not a consensus in this Committee for adjourning now.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I agree that this motion is quite disrespectful to the Committee. We have only been here for half an hour, and we all want to press on. We have got only two more days to look at this huge number of amendments to a very important Bill. It smacks to me of game playing on the part of the Government to move the motion and to be so disrespectful. We are all here in this House, and if the Minister turns around, he will see that the weather outside indicates that we are not going anywhere soon. We are pretty much getting snowed into the building as we speak. We may as well sit here, huddled together, and finish the work that we have begun here this afternoon.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I fully respect the fact that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland has served in the House for 13 years; in the same spirit, I am sure she will respect my 26 years of service. The motion does nothing more than to reflect the understanding that we reached last night, namely that we would debate a very significant amendment in a full session on Thursday. There is no attempt not to discuss anything, because the whole point of Committee is that everything is discussed. There is nothing that will not be discussed as a result of our adjournment this afternoon.

This matter is important, and we are genuinely trying to work out if there is some accommodation that we can make to deal with the issues raised by the hon. Lady and the wider House. There is no game playing and this is not obstruction; it is in the spirit of what was agreed last night. I say that with a smile, looking especially at her. Come Thursday, we will be able to spend a good amount of time getting into the matter in great detail. On that basis, I support the wish to adjourn.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 21st February 2018 Commons Chamber

Let us look at some of the decisions the Government have taken previously, such as the changes made on the marriage allowance. I welcome the positive changes that are being made to the marriage allowance in the Bill, but the creation of the marriage allowance disproportionately has a negative impact on single female parents. That is still a major concern for the SNP. We still have real issues with the marriage allowance and do not think it has been properly thought through, because of the lack of fairness in that system.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a good point on the marriage allowance, as ever. Does she agree that it creates a significant inequality, in that I, as a married woman, suddenly get this advantage over an unmarried woman? That is an injustice and an unfairness in the tax system. The Government really should not be in the business of telling people that it is financially beneficial to get married.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that people should not feel that they should have to get into a marriage, a civil partnership or any kind of signing on a dotted line relationship, to get a tax break. People should have the choice on that. As I said, this allowance has a disproportionately positive effect on people who are married, particularly on men; it is women who tend to be disadvantaged because they cannot receive this allowance.

Turning to other things in the new clause, I have previously talked, particularly during consideration of the customs Bill, about the differential regional impacts that Brexit will have, particularly now that the leaked Government analysis shows that there will be significantly higher negative impact on areas in the north of England, for example, than in London and the south-east of England. Therefore, when the Government make policy they should be making sure they are trying to balance that out and to put in place policies that are more beneficial to those negatively impacted areas, to counterbalance the major negative effect that Brexit will have.

We need to provide the people in those areas, particularly those at the bottom of the pile, with a fairer system that is better for them. Were the Government to analyse that, we would be in a better position and could see more clearly what they thought the impact would be. Part of the problem is that the Government do not know the impact of some of these policies. They do not know what the differential impact will be because they have not looked at it. If they have all this analysis, it should be easy for them to publish it and to give it to Members, so that we can scrutinise it and make the best decisions.

Draft Help-to-Save Accounts Regulations 2018

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2018 General Committees

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Austin. My starting point is that saving is a good thing and it ought to be encouraged. Broadly, the Scottish National Party supports the measure.

The scheme has been a painfully long time in the making—it was announced by some guy called George Osborne in the 2016 Budget—so I am glad to finally see it making its way into regulations. It remains to be seen if the Help-to-Save account will achieve an increase in people’s savings and how many people will take it up. I understand that the scheme is open to 3.5 million people. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether there has been any change to the 2016 planning assumptions that half a million people would sign up.

The wider context, as identified on Second Reading of the Finance Act 2016 by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), still stands. She said:

“Folk who are earning the Chancellor’s pretendy living wage, which is not recognised as being enough to live on, struggle to make it to the end of the month, let alone to have spare money to save for the future. The help to save scheme included in the Budget is welcome, but folk working the minimum 16 hours a week on the pretendy living wage will be earning only £500 a month, and they are hardly likely to be able to spend 10% of that income on savings rather than on immediate concerns.”—[Official Report, 11 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 132.]

Many households struggling to get by would love to be saving. StepChange Debt Charity suggests that 21.8 million adults across these islands believe that they are not putting enough by. That is more challenging still in parts of rural Scotland where the cost of living is higher. Most reasonable people understand the concept of putting money away for a rainy day, but the reality they face is not the rainy day in the future but the flood of debt that they are living with day to day and are trying to bail themselves out of with a leaky bucket.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies published a pretty stark report last week, “Problem debt and low-income households”, which says:

“Around half of households in Great Britain in 2012–14 had some unsecured consumer debt, with 10% of households holding over £10,000 of such debt… Those with lower incomes are less likely to hold any unsecured debt, but are more likely to be in ‘net debt’, with unsecured debts of greater value than their financial assets. 35% of those in the lowest income decile have debts of greater value than their financial assets. This compares with 10% in the highest income decile.”

The Government ought to be attracting those households with the scheme, because they would see the most benefit from it, but there is just not enough money at the end of the month to do it. The IFS also found that people stay in debt for many years, so there is no prospect of their being able to participate in the Help-to-Save scheme for many years until that debt is cleared.

On indebtedness, StepChange Debt Charity responded to the consultation with concerns about the implications for people who sign up for the scheme but find themselves under third-party debt orders or insolvency proceedings—that has not been entirely dealt with so far. Can the Minister explain how that would be resolved? Would that money be called on by debtors or will their savings be safe?

I am concerned about the implications for workers under 25 years old. From responses to the consultation, I understand that they do not qualify for the scheme. I am sure that we would all like to encourage people to get into a savings habit from a young age. Some of us might have had Bank of Scotland’s “Super Squirrel” accounts. I still have the “Route 21” account that I opened with the Royal Bank of Scotland while still at school—although that bank has not shown much loyalty to my home town, because it has shut the branch there. There are excellent financial education schemes in schools, but the UK Government do not follow up on that in the Help-to-Save scheme.

In its response to the consultation, StepChange Debt Charity points out that the Government’s Help-to-Save scheme deliberately excludes those under 25 years old. It says:

“We are concerned, that if eligibility is based on current criteria for claiming Working Tax Credits (WTC) this might discriminate against those under 25. Currently those under 25 only qualify for WTC if they work at least 16 hours a week and qualify for a disabled worker element, or are responsible for a child.

This means that it would not be possible for anybody under 25 who does not qualify for a disabled worker element, or is not responsible for a child, to have a HTS account.”

I am not dying of surprise, because this is a Government who, after all, already engage in age discrimination by staging the minimum wage, leaving 16 and 17-year-olds with a full £3.63 less for an hour’s work than a 25-year-old in the same job, a pretendy living wage and no access to the HTS scheme. Will the Government give some thought to how this unfairness might be rectified before the full roll-out?

On the single provider issue, we are content enough with NS&I but according to the Government’s response to the consultation, a downside is that there will not be branch access to the account, which will be conducted online and via phone services. This could well present a problem for those who have disabilities, literacy issues, mental health issues, deafness and whose first language is not English. In paragraph 10 of the explanatory memorandum, the Government say that there has not been an impact assessment—I do not know whether they mean an equality impact assessment, but it would be worthwhile to have one to ensure that people do not lose out through not being able to access the scheme.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) raised a pertinent point at Prime Minister’s questions last week about women, domestic abuse and access to accounts. Will the Government clarify whether, should there be coercive financial control when a relationship breaks down and savings have been put in as a household— the Minister referred to households and individuals—the woman will still be able to access her account and her savings even though her circumstances may have changed? That is a very important protection to build into the scheme to ensure that women do not lose out, as women suffer more financial exclusion and have more financial abuse perpetrated against them.

Will the Government take action to ensure that people who might not qualify for this HTS scheme are encouraged to save in other ways, through credit unions, as the hon. Member for Oxford East said, which are of huge value in local communities, and traditional banks? That has been made even more difficult by a roll-back of branch networks, with those living furthest away becoming even more marginalised. Jonathan Morduch, professor of policy and economics at New York University, has carried out research which makes it clear that we all make mistakes with our finances but that the poorest pay the heaviest price and, I would argue, need the most protection and support in accessing finance. What is needed is to raise people’s wages, to improve their productivity and to ensure that the social security system does not leave people perilously close to the edge and in debt. Until the Government do that, savings will continue to be out of reach for many.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is right. As I said, income inequality is lower than at any point under the Labour Government. People in full-time work on the national living wage have seen a £2,000 a year pay increase as a result of the national living wage and, of course, everybody in work has seen an improvement in their take-home pay as a result of the significant increases in the personal allowance that this Government committed to, and which this Government are delivering.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The Chancellor’s living wage is a pretendy living wage and is not actually available to those under the age of 25. Can he explain why the age gap in the minimum wage between 25-year-olds and 16 and 17-year olds actually increased in his Budget from £3.45 to £3.63? How can this be an economy that works for everybody if the youngest are not getting paid equally?

[Mr Hammond]

The rates for people under 25 were increased in the Budget by the biggest amount ever—[Interruption.] Look, of course we would all like to see high rates of employment and high rates of pay across all age groups in the economy, but for young people, the most important thing—the Low Pay Commission highlights this fact—is that they get into work, because if they are in work when they are young, they are more likely to remain in sustainable work throughout their lifetime, and that must be the priority.

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 57, in clause 38, page 27, line 9, at end insert—

‘(2A) In subsection (3) of section 69, for “subsection (4)” substitute “subsections (3A) and (4).

(2B) After subsection (3) of section 69, insert—

“(3A) In relation to a failure to comply with any regulatory requirement under section 77E (display of VAT registration numbers on online marketplaces), the prescribed rate shall be determined by reference to the number of occasions in the period of 2 years preceding the beginning of the failure in question on which the person concerned has previously failed to comply with that requirement and, subject to the following provisions of this section, the prescribed rate shall be—

(a) if there has been no such previous occasion in that period, £5,000;

(b) if there has been only one such occasion in that period, £10,000; and

(c) in any other case, £15,000.”’

This amendment increases the prescribed rate of a penalty for failure to comply with a regulatory requirement under section 77E of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (as proposed to be inserted by Clause 38(8)).

Amendment 58, in clause 38, page 27, line 15, at end insert—

‘(ba) after subsection (3), insert—

“(3A) The period specified in a notice in accordance with subsection (3)(a) may not be longer than 10 days.

(3B) It shall be the duty of the Commissioners to give notice under subsection (2) in any case where they are satisfied that to do so would protect or enhance VAT revenue.”’

This amendment specifies the period for compliance with a notice under section 77B as no more than 10 days and requires HMRC to issue a notice in any case where VAT revenue would be protected or enhanced by doing so.

Amendment 59, in clause 38, page 27, line 32, leave out ‘60’ and insert ‘10’.

This amendment reduces the period at the end of which a person must cease to offer goods in breach of the registration requirement from 60 days to 10 days.

Clause stand part.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I do not a have tremendous amount to add to what the hon. Member for Bootle laid out, but I want to highlight the written evidence submitted by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales regarding VAT and online marketplaces.

The institute is concerned that as well as this change proposed by the Government, there may be subsequent change, perhaps—if we are still subject to the European Union—with the principal VAT directive taking effect in 2021. What is the Government’s view of that directive? Do they think there is any chance that we will be in some transitional period, or that UK businesses will be under that directive? It is not clear at the moment.

The chartered accountants are asking for the UK to seek

“a derogation to implement these proposals from an earlier date than currently permitted under EU law.”

That will not be necessary if the UK has left and we are not subject to EU law, but the institute believes that the EU directive would give consistency to both UK and EU businesses and that there would be no double taxation risk in it.

To highlight some of the things that the hon. Member for Bootle mentioned, I am sympathetic to the Government view that this is a difficult area for enforcement. The online world is constantly changing and there are always new ways for businesses to get around their obligations. It might be useful to have a wider review, perhaps once we leave the EU, because in many areas there seems to be a way around for businesses not to pay their VAT—they pop up, do something else, and change and change, so perhaps there should be regulation of the marketplaces to a greater degree, for companies such as eBay and Amazon, to make sure that that is done. Perhaps we should get that VAT automatically at the point of sale, so that we do not have to go through companies in a longer and more protracted way. We know when goods are being delivered; they go to someone’s house, to an address, so for the most part we can trace where they are going. Perhaps there are other ways we can enforce VAT collection. At the moment it seems like an easy thing to get around and a difficult thing for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to chase. If we want to ensure that we get the maximum VAT take, we have to look at different ways and try to get around the technology in a smarter way than we perhaps have been doing up to now.

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

It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Mr Owen.

The clause strengthens existing powers to make online marketplaces accountable for VAT evaded through their platforms. The growth and development of the online retail market mean that the average UK consumer can now buy a vast range of goods at very competitive prices, and have them delivered rapidly by sellers based all over the world. E-commerce plays an important part in the UK economy, but it also provides opportunities for abuse of the VAT system.

Businesses that sell goods to UK consumers via online marketplaces do not always pay the correct VAT to HMRC. When those businesses do not charge VAT correctly on their goods, they unfairly undercut the honest majority of businesses that comply with our VAT rules—that point was made by the hon. Member for High Peak. The businesses that do not charge VAT correctly abuse the trust of UK customers and deprive the Government of significant revenue.

At Budget 2016, the Government announced a package of measures to tackle online VAT fraud. That included a new joint and several liability provision giving HMRC the power to hold online marketplaces responsible for the future unpaid VAT of non-compliant overseas businesses that HMRC identifies operating on the marketplaces. It also included a fulfilment house due diligence scheme which opens for registration in April 2018 and will provide HMRC with an audit trail to track goods that UK-based warehouses are storing for overseas traders. The new package extends HMRC’s existing powers for tackling online VAT fraud. Taken together, the packages of Budget 2016 and autumn Budget 2017 are expected to raise just under £1 billion by 2023.

The clause strengthens HMRC’s existing joint and several liability powers and introduces a new requirement for online marketplaces to display valid VAT numbers on their platforms. Although online VAT fraud is not restricted to overseas businesses, the clause will ensure that joint and several liability rules cover all non-compliant businesses, including United Kingdom ones. It also strengthens the existing joint and several liability rules for overseas businesses and will enable HMRC to hold online marketplaces jointly and severally liable for the unpaid VAT of an overseas online seller from the point when the online marketplace knew or should have known that the overseas seller should be registered for VAT in the UK but was not.

At this point, I will turn to some of the specific points raised by hon. Members this morning. The hon. Member for Bootle was concerned about whether the measures are strong enough, although my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire rightly pointed to the sittings of the Public Accounts Committee, in which the complexity and difficulties of this area have been highlighted.

Under the current arrangements, HMRC has received about 25,000 applications to register for VAT from non-EU-based online retailers. The VAT liability reported by such businesses has increased from £6 million in 2015 to £27 million in 2016, and we expect that to continue to rise. HMRC has issued more than 1,000 joint and several liability notices to online marketplaces resulting in the removal of non-compliant sellers. It has also issued assessments against online overseas traders for unpaid VAT amounting to more than £43 million, with a further £71 million in the pipeline. That covers at least some of the questions posed by the hon. Member for Bootle.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of HMRC resourcing. We have provided HMRC with an additional £2 billion since 2010, which is part of the reason why it has been so successful in bringing in additional revenues by clamping down on avoidance, evasion and non-compliance. A further £170 million came through the recent Budget, which will raise more than £4 billion across the scorecard period. He also mentioned the issue of people and office closures. We have previously discussed how HMRC’s operations are now far more technology-driven and intelligence-led, and that kind of approach lends itself to the more centralised, high-tech, highly skilled operation that underpins much of the success that we are having today.

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central asked about VAT directives. I think—I am interpreting her remarks; she can correct me if I am wrong—that she might be referring to VAT arrangements between the EU and the UK. There is acquisition VAT, as opposed to import VAT, which applies to businesses importing from non-EU countries. The customs Bill going through Parliament at the moment will effect a change from acquisition VAT to import VAT. It will, of course, be down to the negotiation where exactly we land in terms of the arrangements that pertain after our exit from the European Union, but I assure her that HMRC will consider carefully the impact of where we land to ensure that we continue to make progress on online VAT fraud. She suggested a review after we have left the European Union of the measures and the operation of online platforms. We can certainly consider that for the future. I am sure that we will come back to the issue many times in the years ahead.

Finally, the clause requires online marketplaces to ensure that VAT numbers are valid and displayed on websites when they are provided by the seller. The requirement will be supported by regulatory penalty. Taken together, the changes will make it more difficult for non-compliant online businesses to trade in the UK, and will enable HMRC to tackle them more easily.

I welcome the opportunity to speak to the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Oxford East and for Bootle. At this stage, I should say that something rather extraordinary and slightly worrying has occurred: the Government have decided that we are content to accept one of the amendments. After all the constant chipping away at us, one amendment has got through. I would not get too excited—it is slightly technical—but we are grateful to the Opposition for their scrutiny of the Bill and for tabling this amendment. The Government agree with amendment 56 and will therefore specify that it is section 69(1) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 being amended.

Amendment 57 would increase the penalty for online marketplaces that fail to display a valid VAT number when provided with one. The current penalties refer to daily amounts and are entirely consistent with the penalties awarded for similar offences. In contrast, the proposed amendment could result in a marketplace receiving a penalty of up to £1.5 million for failing to display a valid VAT number for a single online sale. We believe that a sanction such as that would be unreasonable.

Amendment 58 would limit the time available for an online marketplace to ensure the compliance or removal of a non-compliant seller to 10 days after receipt of a joint and several liability notice. It would also require HMRC to issue a JSL notice in every case where VAT revenue would be protected or enhanced. Such an amendment would restrict HMRC’s ability in handling non-compliance on a case-by-case basis. It is also somewhat unfair, denying an online marketplace a sufficient opportunity to tackle non-compliance by sellers on its platforms before being held jointly and severally liable.

Similarly, amendment 59 would reduce the period in which an online marketplace must ensure compliance or removal of an overseas seller, from the point of view that it knew or should have known that a particular seller should be registered for UK VAT but is not. The amendment would reduce the period allowed from 60 days to 10 days. That would not allow enough time for an online marketplace acting in good faith to assist an overseas seller in becoming registered for UK VAT without still incurring joint and several liability. I commend the clause to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

The clause makes a number of changes to section 33 of the VAT Act 1994, which allows certain bodies to recover normally irrecoverable VAT. First and foremost, the clause fulfils the commitment made in autumn Budget 2017 to legislate to provide VAT refunds to Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.

The Committee will be aware that in 2012, the Scottish Government chose to restructure Scottish police and fire services to create national bodies. At the time, the Scottish Government understood that those bodies would not be entitled to VAT refunds as they were no longer locally funded. They none the less continued with the change on the basis that VAT costs would be outweighed by potential savings.

A number of representations have been made to the Government on the issue and the Government have listened carefully to the concerns expressed. I am pleased that the provisions in clause 39 will enable the Scottish services to fully recover VAT, in effect providing £40 million additional financial support each year.

The clause also makes minor changes to the legislative basis by which combined authorities and English and Welsh fire authorities receive VAT refunds. Those bodies are currently eligible for VAT refunds but each authority is added to section 33 individually by statutory instrument, which takes up parliamentary time. The clause removes the need for statutory instruments and ensures that English and Welsh fire authorities are automatically entitled to VAT refunds. It does not substantially affect the VAT treatment of combined authorities or English and Welsh fire authorities. It simply removes an unnecessary administrative barrier, freeing up parliamentary time by allowing authorities to access refunds automatically.

Finally, I will touch on the VAT treatment of police services in Northern Ireland. Northern Irish police services have always had the right to reclaim VAT refunds and it is absolutely right that that is the case. However, it is a complex area of VAT law and the Government have decided to clarify the legislation to put the matter beyond doubt. The clause therefore makes explicit the right of the Northern Irish policing bodies to receive VAT refunds.

The clause makes a number of changes to the treatment of public bodies in the VAT Act, as well as making procedural amendments. It delivers on the Chancellor’s Budget announcement on Scottish police and fire services, providing VAT refunds worth around £40 million a year to support the delivery of frontline services. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Alison Thewliss]

We support the U-turn by the UK Government to allow VAT to be reclaimed by Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. I should declare that I was a councillor on the board of Strathclyde fire and rescue when this was being discussed; I know the matter well and know the issues that the Minister referred to. There was a great deal of correspondence at that time from Scottish Government Ministers to the UK Government, requesting that the change be made, so it is with some incredulity that we hear, “Oh wait; all of a sudden we have just realised, yes, we are going to fix it now”—now, rather than several years earlier.

It seems logical that if the argument stands today and it stood in the Budget, then it stood all along, so the Government should do right by the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and Police Scotland and refund the VAT that we are due. Given that those services’ funding was pushed on to the Scottish Government via the UK Government’s austerity agenda, they very much need that money.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a fair point, but the simple fact is that the Scottish Government knew that the changes were going to incur VAT charges. Does she accept not only that the Government have changed their policy position, benefiting police and fire services in Scotland, but that they have increased in real terms the block grant to Scotland? It is not austerity: Scotland is getting more funding under this Conservative Administration, not less.

[Alison Thewliss]

I very much dispute that point, as would the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.

[Luke Graham]

You can’t—it’s a fact.

[The Chair]

Order.

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Gentleman knows that we have been arguing this case in this House since we got here. I was in this very room—in this very spot—when my colleague Roger Mullin made this argument in July 2015. We tabled amendments to the Finance Bill 2015 and to each subsequent Finance Bill, and we have made this argument on numerous occasions here and in the Chamber. We are glad about the change, but we think it is only good, right and fair that it is backdated to reflect the fact that the argument has stood all along.

It is interesting that the Scottish Conservatives have tried to claim that this is some great victory, but the Government’s Red Book, at the top of page 39, speaks of combined authorities in England and Wales being eligible for VAT refund, so I would contend that the Government were almost caught out by this. They had to make the change for Scotland because they were going to make the change for England and Wales, whereupon the argument became utterly compelling and there was no other way for them to get themselves out of the hole. I am very glad indeed that they are doing it.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

I interrupt the hon. Lady in her flow only to congratulate her on the convolutions of her argument. Frankly, it could be easily argued the other way round.

[Alison Thewliss]

The arguments are as compelling today as they were in 2015, in 2012, or at any other point. The coincidence of it having to be done for certain fire services in certain combined authorities in England and Wales makes the case that this should have been done all along.

We welcome this measure. We tabled our new clause, which we will press to a vote at the appropriate stage, because we would like to see some more detail about the administrative consequences and the impact on revenue of allowing retrospective claims. We know that the Government will do things in retrospect—other parts of the Bill enable them to enforce regulations relating to tax avoidance and claim money back in retrospect—so there is no argument that moneys cannot be claimed back if people should have known about them before. The Government are willing to make allowances and make changes if there are things that people might or might not have reasonably known. They have made such changes in other parts of the Finance Bill. We have received lots of correspondence from people who feel as though they have been hard done by a measure the Government are introducing now, which they see as retrospective and unfair. If the Government are allowing retrospective measures elsewhere, why will they not allow it here so that the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and Police Scotland get the money they have been due all along?

[Peter Dowd]

I rise to speak to new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central. The Opposition welcome the Government’s decision to allow the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the Scottish Police Authority to claim retrospective VAT funds. The measures in the clause follow the Scottish Government’s decision in 2012 to establish a nationwide fire and rescue service for Scotland. The Treasury Minister at the time, now the Justice Secretary, wrote:

“Based on the information currently available it seems that, following the Scottish government's planned reforms, neither the new police authority nor the fire and rescue service will be eligible for VAT refunds under Section 33 of the VAT Act 1994.”

That Government decision meant that the Scottish police and fire services lost out on VAT refunds worth more than £30 million, of which Scottish police forces lost out on about £26 million. As a former chair of a fire and rescue service, long before the cuts to those services, I have to say that this amount of money would have been a strain even in those days. It is even more stressful now, so I can understand the anxieties and concerns of the Scottish Government.

To some extent, one could argue that it is a sign of recklessness that, in a time of austerity, the Government would effectively leave Scottish firefighters and police officers to fend for themselves. The Opposition therefore welcome the Government’s decision to reconsider their position, and to allow the Scottish police forces and fire services to retroactively reclaim the VAT—particularly given that the Minister’s reasoning at the time for denying Scottish police and fire services access to the funds was insubstantial at best. At times, it seemed to me and to other onlookers potentially malicious. I think that was the perception that people had at the time.

The then chief constable of Scotland, Sir Stephen House, when he testified to the Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament last year, said that he was bewildered by the fact that the Scottish police force was the only police force charged VAT, as none of the 43 police forces pay VAT, and neither does the Police Service of Northern Ireland or the National Crime Agency, both of which are centralised agencies.

The Government’s decision to allow the Scottish police and fire services to claim retrospectively should not be controversial, even if it has taken a little time to get here. The Government have acted a number of times in the past to ensure that public authorities do not pay VAT, which is laudable. A number of Governments have done that, in fact. In 2001, the last Labour Government introduced a scheme to allow eligible museums and galleries to claim back VAT paid on most goods and services purchased, in order to grant free rights of admission to their collections. In 2011, the coalition Government introduced provisions as part of the Finance Act 2011 to ensure that academies, which supply free education but are not under local authority control—the phrase “under local authority control” is a misnomer if ever there was one, but it is important to use the language that people use, so we all know what we are talking about—were allowed to recover their VAT costs in the same way as local authorities. Similarly, in the March 2015 Budget, the coalition Government announced that from 1 April 2015, hospice charities, search and rescue charities and blood bike charities would be entitled to recover VAT incurred on their business activities, so there is a fairly well-trodden path regarding this issue.

Although we welcome the Government’s change of heart, allowing the Scottish fire and police forces to reclaim VAT retroactively is a drop in the ocean compared with the levels of gross underfunding and cuts to police and fire services across the country, including services in Scotland. New figures obtained by the Fire Brigades Union show that almost one in five frontline fire service posts—some 11,000 jobs—have been lost since 2010, which is a post-war record of job losses in that crucial service. That is all the more reason why this money should come back to those services. Since 2010, almost 8,000 full-time firefighter jobs have been loss. Fire safety inspections have fallen by 28% since the Government came to power, which is all the more reason why this retrospective or retroactive decision should be put into effect. The general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union said that

“Continued cuts to frontline firefighters and emergency fire control operators…are a serious threat to public safety.”

That is worrying.

The VAT refunds, although welcome, will not stop the deeper cuts to the fire service that are currently taking place, resulting in significantly fewer firefighters across the whole country. It is increasingly clear that VAT refunds will not prevent cuts in the service. As far as I can gather, the Prime Minister oversaw that when she was the Home Secretary. This may be the hand of the Prime Minister seeking some sort of retribution—on herself, perhaps—or rather, putting paid to past decisions.

To sum up, we welcome the proposals, but it would be helpful if the Minister could offer some examples where the grant could be claimed and what the criteria would be for things such as rescue charities hoping to access the grant as well. It is regrettable the Government have chosen to spend the last four years playing politics with the Scottish police and fire services. I hope the measure will ensure that VAT on every penny the police and fire services in Scotland spend will be refunded and that the Minister, at the same time, will ask his Government colleagues to look at the state of police and fire services right across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central asked: why now? Why has this not been done before? I guess, as with all policy decisions taken in politics, there was a balance to be struck between resources available, the lobbying that occurred and the input of competing interests. Without going too far into this point, I think it is fair to say that since 2015, the lobbying became fairly intense. That is not to deny in any way that there was fairly intensive lobbying prior to 2015. The decision was taken in the round at the time of the Budget, when all the competing uses for the UK Exchequer’s funds were balanced up. The question, “Why now, rather than at any particular time in the past?” could be applied to almost any tax change. It is a fairly generic point, in that sense.

The hon. Member for Bootle was firm, as was the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, on the perceived unfairness of the original decision. I remind Members that the original decision was taken by the Scottish Government in the knowledge that restructuring their services in this way would have a particular impact on the ability to claim relief for VAT.

[Alison Thewliss]

Will the Minister acknowledge that the original decision by the UK Government not to allow VAT relief was also part of that process?

[Mel Stride]

I was not party to the discussions that occurred at that time. The simple fact is that when the Scottish Government took the decision to restructure, they knew what the consequences would be; that is the critical point. There was no question of the UK Government having been vague or imprecise on that point; we made the consequences very clear to them at that point.

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central suggested that the measures in the clause relating to VAT exemptions for other authorities in England and Wales were somehow linked to this, and forced our hand on the decision about VAT relief for the Scottish fire and rescue service. There is no link; that can be seen from what the two different elements of the clause do. Unlike the provisions on Scotland, the measures on English and Welsh authorities do not extend VAT relief where it is not otherwise available; they are simply to do with the mechanics of how authorities benefit from that relief, and absolve Parliament from having to take the time to agree each and every instance through a statutory instrument.

As a matter of principle, the Treasury would not normally look at bringing in taxes retrospectively. We should be thankful that we have now resolved this issue. I hope that as the years roll by, this will fade into the background, and we will reach a point when we can all feel that we are in a good position regarding VAT and Scottish fire and rescue.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42

Landfill tax: disposals not made at landfill sites, etc

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I understand broadly that we are essentially talking about three changes across the board: the duty rate increase of 2% across all tobacco products, the extra 1% for hand-rolled tobacco, and the minimum excise tax to ensure that there is a minimum tariff for the very cheapest cigarettes.

We are asking for a review and will continue to do so, because it is so necessary. I think that some of the changes are quite positive. The new measures around hand-rolled tobacco are important, given that that form of cigarette has become increasingly popular—more than a third of smokers now use hand-rolled tobacco. Men, rather than women, and people in more deprived socioeconomic groups are particularly likely to smoke hand-rolled cigarettes. We think it is important for action to be taken in that regard.

The MET is also important to ensure that cigarette taxes on their own do not lead to compensatory behaviour, such as switching to a lower price brands. Evidence from countries such as Thailand suggests that when taxes went up, people just compensated by smoking cheaper cigarettes rather than stopping. We are asking for a review because we are concerned about the sufficiency or otherwise of the duty rises reported here for the Government’s overall anti-smoking efforts.

[Alison Thewliss]

On that point about cheaper brands, does the hon. Lady agree that there is also a huge risk that people will turn to illicit tobacco, which is also a tax avoidance matter with people bringing cigarettes into the country?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that germane point. I understand that more research is needed into the extent to which people substitute illicit brands. Of course, that is the nature of the beast, because these products are illicit and therefore difficult to discover. Many of those involved in the trade are involved in other forms of criminality. It is enormously important to deal with that and with the health problems associated with illegal products, which can include lots of chemicals in addition to the tar and other noxious substances present in all cigarettes. I absolutely agree with her.

There is evidence that cigarette taxes are leading to a reduction in smoking, and that the reduction is greater when there are measures in place to prevent the proliferation of very low-cost cigarettes. But there is also evidence that the effectiveness of both is greatly enhanced when coupled with health interventions, not just public awareness campaigns. For example, nicotine replacement therapies have been shown to increase the long-term success of quitting by about 3% to 7%, and if a quit attempt is made by a former smoker with the support of a health professional as part of a structured support programme, they are far more likely to keep that quit in place and not to start smoking again.

Similarly, behavioural support has been shown to increase the likelihood of a smoker quitting long term by a similar figure: between 3% and 7%. I mention that now because current developments are extremely worrying in this regard. A recent report by Cancer Research UK and Action on Smoking and Health shows that cuts to the public health budget nationally have led to dramatic changes in services for smokers. Only 61% of local authorities now offer what the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence suggests for evidence-based intervention to help people stop smoking. I am shocked by that, as I am sure are other members of the Committee. There have been huge cuts to local anti-smoking services, and I understand that at least one local authority now has no budget at all for addressing smoking. In one in nine local authority areas GPs no longer prescribe nicotine patches or similar measures.

Why am I mentioning that now? Let us face an obvious point: tobacco taxes are regressive, because they affect those on lower incomes most. We cannot escape that. If help is available for people to quit, then that regressive impact is in some way compensated for. The evidence is that only about half of the people who smoke actually enjoy it, so huge numbers want to quit. The average smoker in the UK spends £23 a week on cigarettes, and obviously that figure is increasing as a result of these additional duties.

There has been a debate within the international evidence, and this may come up within the Minister’s responsibility when he returns to the issue. Most of the international examination that says that there might not be a regressive impact has suggested that in the long run, low-income smokers will save on their medical costs. But that does not apply in the UK, thank goodness, because we have a national health service that is free at the point of use so everybody is able to use it and there is no such medical saving in that regard.

If those professional services for stopping smoking are not available, particularly to people on low incomes, it will be difficult to avoid the conclusion that this is a regressive tax being imposed without the help that people need to stop smoking. Only about one in twenty people who try to stop unaided manage to stop smoking for six months. People who do stop smoking for some time do have a number of symptoms, as those trying to do it will know. These symptoms are severe, and in many cases they lead to people going back to smoking even if they do not want to do that. It is therefore particularly important that we have help for young people. Labour—

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 11th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Peter Dowd]

The measures in clause 26 are aimed at aligning and consolidating tax and accounts. This clause will freeze the indexation allowance currently in place for companies’ gains that are chargeable to corporation tax. As things stand, companies do not have to pay tax on the proportion of their capital gains attributable to inflation. Instead, as hon. Members know, what happens is that when calculating a gain on the disposal of an asset, companies apply an indexation factor on the acquisition, enhancement or disposal of the asset that reflects movements in the retail prices index over the period since the expenditure occurred.

This system is different from the treatment of individual taxpayers, for whom the allowance was first frozen in March 1998 and then abolished in April 2008. That prompts the question: why was the allowance for companies not reformed and abolished at the same time, to avoid the situation that we have had for the past nine years, whereby there has been one set of rules for individual taxpayers and another for companies? However, we are where we are. It is another example of a needless complication in the tax system that causes problems for lawmakers, tax accountants, financial advisers, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and taxpayers alike.

The indexation allowance is in effect a tax relief from capital gains tax on inflation. The allowance may have been minimal before the drop in the pound, but with inflation at 2.8%, 3% and so on, it is potentially becoming a substantial amount of money. According to the Treasury’s estimates, the change could be a significant revenue raiser. It estimates that it will raise £30 million this year alone, and that that will go up to £525 million for 2022-23. Of course, that revenue would be a welcome addition to the public coffers, but we have a degree of scepticism about the figures, because in the past we have had from the Government figures and costings for measures that have been out of kilter quite heavily.

The most recent example was the revenue to be raised from the soft drinks industry levy, which was introduced in the first Finance Bill last year. Hon. Members may recall that that was dealt with in the wash-up. Opposition Members agreed to it going through its stages pretty smoothly. We always have concerns when there is a question about whether we can sufficiently challenge Government proposals, but as this was the sugar tax, and it was not just a tax-raising measure but had broader public health benefits, we were happy to allow it to go through. It was suggested in the draft proposals that the levy would raise an ambitious £520 million. However, the Chancellor announced in the 2017 spring Budget that its estimated revenue had been revised down to £380 million, and the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast in December, on the basis of the Government’s Red Book for the autumn Budget, that it would raise only £300 million. That is a whopping £220 million less than the Government’s original forecast, and a further £80 million less than the revised figure that the Chancellor provided in the spring Budget.

It is important for us to be clear. If the Government provide us with figures—I believe that they did so in good faith—we have a duty to challenge them. That miscalculation—I use that word rather than any other—only adds to the growing hole in the public finances. It is important for us to challenge the Government’s figures and assumptions.

That is why the Opposition tabled amendment 48, which would require the Government to commission a review of the revenue effects of freezing the indexation allowance for gains chargeable to corporation tax. I am sure that the Minister is sympathetic to our concern that some companies may still seek a way round the change, rather than paying an increasing amount on the inflationary element of gains. The amendment is an attempt by the Opposition to say, “Fine, the Government’s indexation proposal is okay—but let’s test the figures a little more.” Let us have a review. Let us ensure that we are not in the same situation as we were with the soft drinks levy, which does not raise as much revenue as we thought it might.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The Minister will be aware that the insurance industry has raised concerns about the impact of the clause on fairly small savers, such as people with endowments that were sold door to door. There is a report on the BBC website that quotes Steve Webb, a former Minister who now works with Royal London, on the impact that the clause will have on Royal London’s savers. Standard Life is also reported to have concerns. We are therefore not entirely content with the clause. We will not oppose it at this stage, but we reserve the right to look at it again on Report.

We would like the Government to address the industry’s concerns, and I have a few questions for the Minister. It is estimated that the clause will affect 11.6 million policyholders, most of whom are basic rate taxpayers, and the industry estimates that the impact will be in excess of £250 million per year—double the figure implied by the Chancellor at the Treasury Committee in December. Individual life insurance policyholders may pay an average of £21, and in some cases up to £150, per policy per annum. That is a considerable impact given that such people have relatively small savings.

The Chancellor said in December in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), who sits on the Treasury Committee, that the change will have a “modest impact”, but that is not a modest impact for those savers—it is significant. The policies that the clause will affect include non-pension unit-linked, non-pension with-profits and whole-of-life policies, as well as endowments, which I mentioned. On what basis did the Government reach the conclusion that the change will have a modest impact and affect a relatively small number of policyholders? We are talking about 11.6 million people—not a small number by any manner or means. Those policies may represent a relatively small amount of money to the Government, but the change will have a significant impact for those people.

Have the Government made an assessment of the number of policies affected? Have they produced a detailed impact assessment that can be shared with members of the Committee? Will the Minister commit to providing further information on the impact of the policy on individual savers? The coverage in newspapers at the time of the Budget and since raises concerns that more policyholders will be affected than the Government at first assumed.

I would like as much clarification as the Minister can give us today. If he could write to me later with more detailed information, that would also be welcome. We want to put on record our concerns about the impact there might be; perhaps there will be unintended consequence, and maybe the impact has not been fully considered. Given the concerns that the industry is raising, it would be good get a commitment from the Government on how those will be addressed.

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

The clause freezes the indexation allowance—a relief for inflation—for a company’s chargeable gains for disposals on or after 1 January 2018. It may be useful for the Committee if I set out the background to the clause, although other Members have touched on it, before I turn to amendment 48 and the questions posed by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central.

Removing this outdated allowance supports the UK’s competitive rate of corporation tax by removing a relief that is not available consistently across corporation tax to individuals, as the hon. Member for Bootle pointed out, or in most major comparable economies. In doing so, the Government recognise the importance of being fair and proportionate. As companies may have factored in relief for inflation before the autumn Budget, relief will remain available for inflation before January 2018. However, it will no longer be available from 2018 onwards.

Companies pay tax on the capital gains they make on the disposal of certain assets, such as property. In most circumstances, the capital gain is based on the rise in value of the asset over the period of ownership. Indexation allowance relieves a proportion of that gain from the charge to tax, based on the rise in the retail prices index, during the same period. Companies therefore pay tax only on the gains they make over and above inflation.

The economy and tax system have changed substantially since the allowance was introduced in 1982, when the rate of corporation tax was 52%; inflation in the preceding decade had been in double digits. While I certainly take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point about the current level of inflation owing to the depreciation of the pound and other factors, the Office for Budget Responsibility projects that inflation will peak at 3.1% and tail off towards 2% across the period. While there used to be a rationale for such an allowance, it has become something of an anachronism.

The amount of indexation allowance due is calculated by multiplying the purchase price of the assets by the indexation factor. As I set out, that is currently based on the increase in the retail prices index over the period an asset is owned, from the date it is acquired to the date it is disposed of. Going forward, the allowance will no longer be calculated by reference to the date an asset is sold; instead, it will be calculated by reference to the final month before the relief is removed—in other words, December 2017. That means that, where a company acquired an asset before 2018, relief from inflation will be available from the date the asset was acquired up to December 2017. The indexation allowance will not be available for assets acquired from January 2018 onwards.

I turn to the questions posed by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central. I recognise the points that she makes. While these changes affect corporation tax, they do, in the context of life assurance policies, have potential impacts on individuals and their income net of tax. I do not recognise the large number of 11 million policyholders that she mentioned. I am not sure what the source of that figure was. However, as she requested, I am happy to hear from her, speak to her or have a letter from her on any of the aspects she may have an interest in.

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting)

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head; I am pleased, because there will be many opportunities as we go forward. Of course, one of the reasons why the question of impacts is difficult and challenging is that, at this stage, we do not know exactly where the negotiation will land, exactly what the treaty arrangements will be between us and the European Union after our exit, and what our customs arrangements and new trading arrangements with the rest of the world will be, and so on. We await those details.

Returning to the Bill, the amount of R and D expenditure supported through the tax credits doubled to £23 billion between 2010 and 2015-16. At the autumn Budget 2017, the Government announced a further £2.3 billion of additional direct R and D spending in 2021-22. That is on top of the record investment of £4.7 billion by the national productivity investment fund in R and D that was announced in the autumn statement 2016. Taken together, total Government support for R and D will increase by a third from 2015-16 to 2021-22. I am clear that the change in this Bill, along with the wider support that the Government are providing, will give valuable help to businesses investing in R and D in the period in which we will leave the EU. The change reaffirms our ambition to increase total UK investment in R and D to 2.4% of GDP.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The briefing from the Chartered Institution of Taxation points out that there may be merit in expanding R and D relief to product commercialisation, because we do lots of development in the UK but not necessarily all the commercialisation, and some of that benefit goes overseas. Will the Minister explore whether that might be possible?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have had many benefits from the EU, and just one of them is the level of innovation. As a result of the level of free movement that we have had, we have been able to get excellent people in to improve our research and development, and to collaborate with places overseas. Our universities, companies and hubs of expertise have been an incredible success story in recent years in terms of the research that they have been able to do. There is a brilliant hub around Edinburgh that is involved in robotics. It is hugely important to take those steps.

The Government need to ensure that they continue to foster that culture. Leaving the EU is a big problem, in terms of us not being able to bring those people here. The Government need to not only increase the research and development expenditure credit by 1%, but make changes so that the UK can be a nation that welcomes scientists and encourages them to come here and make a positive economic contribution, as they already do. We do not want to lose those people.

[Alison Thewliss]

The point about not losing what we have is absolutely crucial. The Strathclyde Technology and Innovation Centre at the University of Strathclyde in my constituency has had £89 million, including money from the European regional development fund, to set up cutting-edge industries. Anything that loses that or puts it at risk will have a hugely detrimental effect on Glasgow and Scotland’s wider economy.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. A lot of these projects have been brought to fruition because of the benefits of EU money. The UK Government have not committed to filling the EU funding gap that there will be, particularly for universities and for the research and development of vital products that UK companies can sell on.

It is welcome that the Government are putting some focus on research and development expenditure. That is a positive thing. However, it is not in any way the end of the story. To simply stand still, the Government need to make significantly more commitments. We would appreciate the Westminster Government being much more positive about the innovation culture. They need to put their money where their mouth is and make sure they fund these things more appropriately.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

I am sure you will be entirely obliging. This has been a wide-ranging debate, covering just about everything. We have had an absence of the biblical references and classical quotations that normally enliven our discussions at this time of the day.

We all agree about the essential role that productivity plays, and, in turn, the essential role that R and D plays in driving productivity. Paul Krugman is entirely right that, in the long run, productivity is almost everything, because if we do not get a rise in productivity we do not get a rise in real wages, living standards and all the things that Governments ensure happen. It is not just our country that has had a productivity challenge since the crash in 2008. The productivity rates of most of our competitor countries are all well down on where they were prior to that point. We certainly have a particular challenge in the United Kingdom, which is why we are doing so much in the productivity space. R and D tax credits are but one element of that. We have now set an R and D target: as I said earlier, 2.4% of GDP will be R and D expense by 2027.

It is useful to note that much was made of how this Government are performing relative to the past, as if in the past we were doing incredibly well with R and D. The reality is that over the past 30 years there has never been a single year in which R and D expenditure as a proportion of GDP has exceeded 2%. That is a simple fact. That goes for this Government, the coalition Government and the Labour Governments who preceded them, so in a sense we are all in the same boat.

I do not accept that we are not doing enough in this area. R and D tax credits are but one example. The amount going in since 2012-13 has doubled to £2.9 billion. In 2016, we announced direct R and D expenditure of £2.3 billion by 2020 to 22. We have had major announcements on infrastructure and roads and rail. As I said in my opening remarks, in the previous Budget we expanded the national productivity investment fund to £31 billion.

On the specific issue that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North—and others, by way of intervention—raised, we totally accept that support for our universities is absolutely critical. That is why we are doing things on the immigration side. We are seeking to get the balance right to attract the right kind of talent. Equally, we are underwriting the Horizon 2020 programme, such that any Horizon 2020 projects agreed by the European Union prior to our departure will be underwritten by the UK Government, irrespective of whether that money is being spent at the time that we exit.

[Alison Thewliss]

Some of the money for Strathclyde University is coming through the European Regional Development Fund, rather than Horizon 2020. Will ERDF money also be guaranteed?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady knows that we are reviewing that specific point in the context of the negotiations. Those are decisions, among others, that we will have to take in future. My point is about that critical flagship programme, Horizon 2020. The hon. Member for Bootle suggested that we have not treated universities in the way that we have the agricultural sector, to which guarantees have been provided, but this is a clear example in the universities sector of where we are doing precisely that.

I will not dwell on those matters; I am aware that they are more directly related to R and D tax credits, but the patient capital review is a commitment that we put a lot of money, effort and research and development into. The intellectual property issue was mentioned in the debate. There is the patent box, which provides a lower rate of taxation for those businesses that develop intellectual property, so that we make sure that that is developed and exploited in this country.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North quite rightly mentioned the North sea, which is absolutely critical to her part of the United Kingdom. There are measures in the Bill that we will come to shortly that further ease tax pressures in that sector, and certainly there were measures in the last Finance Bill, when she and I both served on the Committee.