Finance Bill

David Gauke Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clauses 5, 6 and 8.

Amendment 91, page 57, in clause 42, leave out lines 26 and 27.

Amendment 92, page 57, leave out lines 30 to 41.

Amendment 93, page 58, leave out from beginning of line 1 to end of line 37 on page 60 and insert—

“Graduated rates of duty payable on first vehicle licence

For the purpose of determining the rate at which vehicle excise duty is to be paid on each of the first three years of vehicle licence for a vehicle to which this Part of this Schedule applies, the annual rate of duty applicable to the vehicle shall be determined in accordance with the following table by reference to the applicable CO2 emissions figure.

[Mr Gauke]

I would like to open the debate by discussing amendments 31 to 70. As announced in the Public Bill Committee, the Government are introducing amendments to clauses 25 and 26 and schedules 5 and 6 to ensure that the Bill works as intended and that the new rules work correctly with the existing provisions.

I remind the House that the original clauses and schedules make changes to the rules for the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts to bring them into line with new state aid rules. This will secure the future of the schemes and ensure they continue to be well targeted towards companies that need investment to develop and grow. The enterprise investment and venture capital schemes have been supporting small companies to access finance for more than 20 years and provide generous tax incentives to encourage private individuals to invest in high-risk small and growing companies that would otherwise struggle to access finance from the market. The original clauses and subsequent amendments ensure the long-term future of these important schemes.

Alongside the amendments, the Government are also introducing new clause 4, which makes changes to exclude companies from qualifying for the seed enterprise and investment scheme, the enterprise investment scheme and the venture capital trust, if their activities involve making available reserve electricity generating capacity—for example, under the capacity market agreement or the short-term operating reserve contract. In recent years, there has been a significant increase in tax-advantaged investment in energy companies benefiting from other guaranteed income streams. These activities are also generally asset-backed. The new clause will ensure that the Government remain consistent in their approach by keeping the venture capital schemes targeted at high-risk companies. We will also introduce secondary legislation to exclude subsidised renewable energy generation by community energy organisations.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

The Minister will be aware that the very late tabling of new clause 4 might have disconcerted and inconvenienced companies. Among those it has unsettled is one in my constituency which was on the point of closing a funding arrangement that would have given it access to capital of about £25 million to £40 million. Given that the concern the new clause appears to address is focused on state aid or subsidy, particularly capacity market agreements, will he confirm that it is not intended to apply to businesses that do not use capacity market agreements, such as the one I have described?

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for letting me know earlier today about his constituency case. It is difficult to be drawn too much on an individual case, although I understand why he has raised it, and I can assure him that the representation he made to me earlier today on behalf of his constituent is being looked at closely. He has obviously put his concerns on the record, but all I can say now is that there is a clear objective behind new clause 4. It is about ensuring that the provisions are state aid compliant and that the regime is well targeted. I hope he will be reassured that I and my officials will look closely at his case, but if he will forgive me, I will not get too drawn into the specific circumstances he outlines.

[Jesse Norman]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for those assurances. Am I right in thinking that there will be scope within regulation to allow the kind of carve-out that might be necessary if his investigations uphold, as it were, the position that I am taking?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend draws me more into the specifics, but I hope he will be satisfied if I ask him to let me look at the particular circumstances that his constituent has raised. In that context, before we get into process matters, he should let me look at those particular circumstances. There are good reasons why we are bringing forward new clause 4, which is consistent with our general approach to ensure that the schemes are properly targeted.

As I mentioned, we shall introduce secondary legislation to exclude subsidised renewable energy generation by community energy organisations. This follows the announcement in the summer Budget that the Government would continue to monitor the use of the venture capital schemes by community energy to ensure that the schemes were not subject to misuse and that they provided value for money to the taxpayer. All these changes on energy activities will take effect for investments made on or after 30 November. The Government intend to apply all these exclusions to the social investment tax relief when SITR is enlarged.

New clause 5 corrects a technical defect in the legislation relating to corporation tax instalment payments. Instalment payments are currently made by large companies—that is, companies with profits that exceed £1.5 million. The definition of “large” was previously included in primary legislation, which has since been repealed when corporation tax rates were unified from 1 April 2015, at which point the definition moved to secondary legislation. Following that, there is a mismatch between the cessation of the repealed legislation and the commencement of the new definition, which could be interpreted to mean that corporation tax payments would be due nine months and a day after the accounting period. There is no evidence of companies having acted on the defect, and corporation tax receipts are, happily, above forecast. The changes proposed in new clause 5 correct this uncertainty to ensure that the definition of “large” will apply for accounting periods that span 1 April 2015, so that corporation tax instalment legislation will apply.

New clause 8 addresses an unfairness whereby in certain claims for repayment of tax and restitution through interest payments, taxpayers might receive a significant additional benefit at the expense of the public purse. The vast majority of interest payments that are paid by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are made under the relevant Taxes Act. These will continue to be subject to the normal rate of corporation tax. However, the interest payments targeted by this clause arise from claims made under common law, which stretch over a large number of years—in some cases, going back to 1973—and represent a unique set of circumstances.

As it stands under current law, any payments will be taxed at the low corporation tax rate that applies at the time the payments are due to be made. Since the interest payments targeted by the clause have accrued over years when the rate of corporation tax was much higher than companies currently enjoy, those making the claims receive a significant financial benefit. In addition, such payments may have to be calculated on a compound basis, further improving the advantage gained at the expense of the public purse.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

While I support the robust way in which the Minister is protecting the public purse, he will also recognise, not least from the correspondence he must have received, that many colleagues and constituents feel that this fairness deal does not apply both ways. At times when individuals have owed the Exchequer rather more money, they have had interest charged at very high levels. Will my hon. Friend try to ensure that what is good for the geese is also good for the gander in respect of these matters? I entirely understand that he wants an equitable arrangement, but there is a sense from many taxpayers and indeed their financial advisers that all too often the Revenue does not see it in quite the same light when they are on the other side of the equation.

[Mr Gauke]

I can tell my right hon. Friend, who is a tireless defender of the interests of the taxpayer, that the measure is targeted at very specific circumstances in which compound interest may have to be paid in relation to claims which, as I have said, potentially date back to 1973. I hope I can reassure him that we do not believe the same approach should be applied in every case.

As I have said, such payments may have to be calculated on a compound basis, which would increase the advantage gained at the expense of the public purse. To address that unfairness, the Government are ensuring that an appropriate amount of tax, set at a rate of 45% , is paid on any such awards. That rate reflects the long period over which any such interest accrued, the higher rate of corporation tax which applied during the period, and the compounding nature of such potential awards. It is a special rate which applies in special circumstances. We are also introducing a withholding tax on those payments to provide for the easiest method of paying and collecting the tax that is due.

The changes will affect only a relatively small number of companies which have claims related to historical issues. They will affect fewer than 0.5% of companies making corporation tax returns. This is a prudent step to ensure that if any such payments have to be made, they are subject to a fair rate of tax. HMRC will continue to challenge all aspects of the claims on the basis of strong legal arguments.

New clause 8 will ensure that a principled and targeted system is in place to address a potential unfairness whereby a few businesses receive significant benefits resulting from the unique nature of this litigation at the expense of the public purse.

New clause 6 and amendments 71 to 88 relate to clauses 40 and 41. Let me begin with a brief reminder of the provisions in those clauses. Investment fund managers are rewarded for their work in a range of ways, one of which is known as carried interest. It is the portion of a fund’s value that is allocated to managers in return for their long-term services to the fund. The manager’s reward therefore depends on the performance of the fund. Aspects of the UK tax code meant it was possible for asset managers to reduce the effective tax rate payable by them on their carried interest awards. In particular, it was possible for them to pay tax on amounts much lower than their actual economic gains. The changes made by clauses 40 and 41 ensure that investment managers will pay at least 28% tax on the economic value of the carried interest that they receive.

Amendments 71 to 88 make a series of technical changes in relation to carried interest to ensure that it operates as intended. New clause 6 is an addition to the provisions dealing with the tax treatment of carried interest and the related measures on disguised investment management fees. It establishes a comprehensive definition when sums arise for tax purposes under these rules.

[Mark Field]

Will the Minister give us an indication of the amount of consultation that has taken place on these changes, which, obviously, have been introduced since the publication of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2015? While I entirely appreciate that he rightly wants to ensure that the Exchequer receives the correct amount of money, and while I also appreciate that there is clearly a potential for carried interest payments to be at least—shall we say—uncertain, is he entirely satisfied that there has been sufficient consultation to ensure that those who will be affected by the changes have had an opportunity to put their case?

[Mr Gauke]

It certainly is the case that there has been no shortage of representations received by the Treasury on the changes we have undertaken in this area. As always, it is necessary to strike a balance between ensuring we move swiftly to address any risk to the Exchequer and ensuring the legislation is adequate and achieves what the Government seek. I am satisfied that in these circumstances we have struck that balance successfully, and that there has been the opportunity to understand the implications of this legislation while at the same time ensuring we have been able to protect the Exchequer.

While I am on my feet, and perhaps to anticipate some of the points that will be made on this somewhat diverse group, I shall address the related matter of new clause 3 tabled by Scottish National party Members. It proposes a review within six months of Royal Assent on the tax treatment of investment fund managers’ remuneration. Legislating for a review in six months is unnecessary. The Government have already launched a consultation in this area to ensure rewards will be charged to income tax when it is correct they are, according to the activity of the fund. That consultation closed on 30 September and we will be publishing our response along with any resulting draft legislation in due course.

In anticipation of remarks I know we will hear from the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) about vehicle excise duty, let me also turn to amendments 91 to 93. They would require the Chancellor to replace the changes made by clause 42 and introduce a new VED system that addressed none of the challenges of the current VED system. The amendments call for first year rates of VED to be extended to cover the first three years of ownership and thereafter for rates to be based on a shallower graduation of CO₂. By continuing to base annual rates of VED on CO₂, these amendments would recreate the sustainability challenge of the existing VED system. As new cars become more fuel efficient, more and more ordinary cars will fall into the lower rate of VED bands for their entire lifetime. The changes would also weaken incentives for people to purchase the very cleanest cars. The system Opposition Members propose would therefore need updating regularly to keep pace with technological change. Unless Opposition Members are proposing to retrospectively tax motorists every time the system needs tweaking, an entirely new VED system would need to be created each time. This would create uncertainty for motorists and car manufacturers, something they have repeatedly asked the Government to avoid. These amendments would also mean the VED system remains regressive and unfair for motorists. Poorer families with older, less fuel-efficient cars would still end up paying more tax than richer ones who were able to buy a new car every few years.

In contrast to amendments 91 to 93, the changes made by clause 42 do address the fairness and sustainability problems of the current VED system. These changes base annual rates of VED on a flat rate of £140 for all cars except zero-emission cars, which pay nothing. There will be a standard rate supplement of £310 for cars worth above £40,000 to apply for the first five years in which the standard rate is paid. These changes improve fairness for all motorists and ensure that those with expensive cars pay more than those with ordinary family cars. Those who can pay more will pay more.

They also provide long-term certainty in VED revenues. This supports the creation of the new roads fund so that from 2020 all revenue raised from VED in England will go into the fund. It will be invested directly back into the English strategic road network. The changes made by clause 42 still support uptake of the cleanest cars. They maintain and strengthen the environmental signal where it is most effective in influencing people’s choice of car in the highly visible first-year rates.

By returning VED to a flat rate while continuing to support the cleanest cars, clause 42 provides a simple, fairer, more certain and more sustainable long-term solution. It allows for the creation of a new roads fund which will ensure that our roads network will receive the multi-billion programme of investment it needs. I commend clause 42 and urge the house to reject amendments 91 to 93.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

How will the roads fund work when applied to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, with the duty coming from Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish car taxes?

[Mr Gauke]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are talking to the devolved Administrations about exactly how we are going to do that. We are conscious that these are devolved matters, and we are actively engaged with the devolved Administrations.

I hope that the new clauses and amendments to which I referred earlier in the context of the enterprise investment scheme, venture capital trusts, corporation tax instalment payments and restitution interest payments will be able to stand part of the Bill and have the support of the whole House.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

It is an honour for me to speak from the Dispatch Box for the first time under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I hope that this will be the first of many debates in the Chamber with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

I shall first speak to the Government’s amendments and new clauses, before speaking to our amendments on vehicle excise duty. On the whole, the Government’s amendments are technical in nature, designed to preserve the integrity of the Bill, to comply with EU law and to close loopholes. On that basis, we broadly support them, but I will make a few comments.

The explanatory notes and impact assessments relating to the measures were only provided by the Government at 11.50 this morning. Given the detailed nature of the proposed changes, that simply does not allow sufficient time for scrutiny. The hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) has already made that point, and KPMG has also voiced its concern, stating:

“It is important…that the Government is seen to follow the process consistently, and provide suitable time for consultation and Parliamentary scrutiny wherever possible: the addition of entirely new measures to the Summer Finance Bill so late in its passage through the Commons…is likely to foster only uncertainty.”

I hope that the Minister will take these concerns into account and ensure that this does not happen again.

New clause 4 will exclude certain contractual activities relating to reserve electricity generating capacity from the scope of venture capital trusts. These proposals are required to comply with EU state aid rules, along with amendments 31 to 45 and 46 to 70. New clause 5 relates to corporation tax instalment payments and corrects a legislative defect that has previously caused uncertainty over how the legislation will apply to accounting periods that run over 1 April 2015.

New clause 6 relates to carried interest and disguised investment management fees. These are technical corrections to clause 40 that are meant to ensure that where carried interest is charged to tax under the capital gains tax code, the full economic gain is brought into charge to tax. This new clause is intended to prevent sums arising to a fund manager as investment management fees or carried interest from being sheltered from tax through arrangements that have the effect that the amounts arise to other persons.

New clause 8 relates to restitution interest payments and introduces a new rate of corporation tax on amounts of restitution interest that may be paid by HMRC under a claim relating to the payment of tax on a mistake of law or the unlawful collection of tax. The interest element of a restitution award will be chargeable to corporation tax at a special rate of 45% instead of the normal 20% rate. We broadly support this measure, but the Minister will be aware of the hostile views that have been expressed by some businesses. He might wish to take this opportunity to respond to some of those views today.

New clause 3 requires the Chancellor to lay a report setting out proposals for amending the law to ensure that no element of the remuneration aid to an investment fund manager may be treated as a capital gain and that such remuneration shall be treated as income for tax purposes. We agree with the general aims of the new clause but we will listen carefully to what the Minister has to say on this issue.

The proposal dealing with vehicle excise duty relates to rates for light passenger vehicles in the UK and considerably flattens them out by introducing a flat-rate excise charge for every vehicle, regardless of carbon dioxide emissions, from 1 April 2017. First-year rates will continue to be determined by a sliding scale, depending on CO₂ emissions. For most greener cars, which emit below 120g of CO₂ per kilometre, people will now pay VED of up to £160 in the first year, whereas previously they paid nothing—only zero-emission cars will be liable for zero VED. In subsequent years, there will be a flat-rate of VED of £140 a year. Hon. Members will note that this will result in a substantial VED increase for low-emission cars in the first and subsequent years, while there is a substantial reduction for cars that are less carbon-efficient. Previously, VED for subsequent years was banded, with the more polluting cars paying more—up to £505.

Clearly, over time, the approach being taken strongly benefits more polluting cars, which will pay hundreds of pounds a year less, while greener cars, aside from those with zero emissions, will pay about £100 a year more. To put this into perspective, approximately 445 cars are currently in the top least polluting bands and so pay no VED, as they emit less than 100g of CO₂ per kilometre, whereas under the proposed changes only 13 will fall into the exempt category. That represents a significant drop. In addition to those proposals, moves are also being made to additionally penalise vehicles priced at over £40,000 and, over time, there will also be a supplementary rate of £310 for the first five years.

A tax on passenger vehicles has been a feature of Government policy since as far back as 1889, but it is important to note that it was the Labour Government in 1999 who introduced bands of VED linked to the levels of CO₂ emissions. The measure was designed to encourage the purchase and use of more fuel-efficient and low-emission vehicles, with the aim of lessening the environmental impact of an ever-increasing number of cars on the road. There is broad consensus on both sides of the House that VED reform is needed. Greener, more carbon-efficient vehicles are slowly becoming more commonplace across the UK, and this will undoubtedly have clear implications for VED as a future source of Government revenue. VED bands were set up in 2008, when the average emission was 158g of CO₂ per kilometre, whereas the average car now produces 125g of CO₂ per kilometre. Many cars therefore pay no VED at all.

Labour Members agree with the Government that this is unsustainable, but we question whether the approach they have taken to address it is pragmatic. We do not agree that increasing the duty paid on low-emission cars while decreasing the duty paid on higher-emission cars is the logical solution. The fact that zero-emission vehicles will continue to be exempt from road tax is welcome, but we are concerned that a flat rate of VED, as outlined in this proposal, will mean that low-emission vehicles will pay £800 to £1,000 more over a seven-year period than they do now, while many high-emission vehicles are expected to pay up to £440 less.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

I want to make a brief contribution on new clause 3. The Minister, elegantly as he does, fobbed us off by saying, “We’re having a consultation and so on, but meanwhile we’ll press on regardless.” However, there is still a major issue regarding a potential tax loophole that has not been closed.

I accept that fund managers are remunerated on two different and distinct levels: they are paid for the work they do as investment managers and also receive a reward for hazarding their own capital. I also accept that there is a gain in having fund managers hazard some of their own capital, perhaps more so than they do at the moment. Unfortunately, though, if we charge very different marginal rates on the income component and on the hazarding their own money component, we will create the capacity for a loophole in paying the lower tax on the capital gain and less on the income.

It does not matter what short-term changes the Minister makes to try to prevent existing ways in which hedge funds allow the personal investment component of the investment to be organised, because people will just think up new ones. We have to close the loophole at source. The obvious way to do that would be to go back to a previous situation in which income tax and capital gains tax were charged at the same marginal rate.

Unfortunately, for the past several decades we have proceeded down a road of constantly cutting taxes on capital. I think there was a case in the 1990s for cutting marginal rates of tax on capital, because it was a difficult economic period and we had to encourage investment, but the Government have transformed that into an ideological demand that we always go on cutting taxes. Indeed, one of the core philosophies of the Finance Bill is to cut corporation tax even more, despite the fact that, on both a UK and a global level, we have pyramided up corporate surpluses, which are not being used. The current problem is not to find more loose capital, but to find fiscal incentives to make the owners of capital invest it.

The inherent philosophical problem with which the Government present us in the Bill is the imbalance created when marginal rates of taxation on capital are pushed lower and lower while significant taxes on labour are not reduced effectively and significantly. Our new clause 3 is specifically designed to force the Government to respond to the philosophical principle that the loophole should not be created in the first place. I do not think that the Minister has answered that effectively, which is why we will press new clause 3 to a vote.

[Mr Gauke]

Let me respond to what has been an eclectic debate. I welcome the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) to the Dispatch Box for her debut. I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) and wish her a long and successful career speaking from the Opposition Dispatch Box. I am sure she will be something of a star of the Labour Opposition Front Bench for years to come.

The hon. Lady said that the explanatory notes were only made available this morning, but I understand that they have been available on the gov.uk website since Thursday 22 October, which was the day after the amendments and new clauses were tabled. If she has any contrary information, I will happily look at it.

The hon. Lady touched briefly on the compound interest charge and asked me to respond to hostile comments from business. The measure is being introduced to ensure that a fair amount of corporation tax is paid and that any awards of restitution interest are paid by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. We are setting the special rate to reflect the unique circumstances of the claims. It will affect only a relatively small number of companies—about 0.5% of those submitting corporation tax returns in relation to specific payments—and it will not affect the benefit given by the historically low rates of corporation tax on the trading and investment profits they currently make. It will ensure that relatively few do not gain a significant additional benefit at the expense of the public purse.

Let me turn to the lengthier debate we have had about reforms of vehicle excise duty. The hon. Lady raised a concern that they may damage UK car manufacturing and penalise cars built in the United Kingdom. We are not doing that. The supplement will apply to all cars worth more than £40,000, regardless of where they are manufactured, and we are supporting cars such as the Nissan Leaf, which is built in Sunderland, through zero rates for zero-emission cars. We think it is fair that more expensive cars pay more than ordinary family cars.

On the accusation that it is unfair that cars that are more fuel efficient pay the same as gas-guzzling vehicles, I would argue that they do not. Under the new system, the first-year rates for the highest-emitting cars will be doubled compared with the current system. Zero-emission cars will continue to pay no annual VED rate, and more expensive, bigger, higher-polluting cars will pay the standard rate supplement, so there will be incentives to buy smaller, lower-emitting cars on the second-hand market. What is unfair in the current system is that those who can afford to buy a brand-new car pay less than those who cannot do so. That point was made by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). In the new system, those who can afford an expensive car will pay more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards]

If there is any evidence in future years of significant behavioural changes, which some of us are concerned there might be, would the Government be willing to revise their position?

[Mr Gauke]

The Government and the Treasury keep all taxes under review, and were contrary evidence to emerge, we would of course look at it and, if necessary, adapt the policy. We have, however, made a judgment on the evidence before us, and consumer research demonstrates that first-year incentives are by far the most important when customers come to choose new cars.

The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles asked why the Government are now taxing plug-in and hybrid vehicles the same as conventionally fuelled cars. Such cars will still benefit from cheaper rates. The updated CO₂ banding on first-year rates in the new VED system will strengthen the incentive to purchase the cleanest cars, including plug-in and hybrid vehicles. As I have said, the evidence suggests that up-front incentives are the most effective in influencing behaviour. We will continue to support hybrids and plug-in vehicles with beneficial rates of company car tax and enhanced capital allowances, as well as through the plug-in car grant. The Government have guaranteed that £5,000 grant until February 2016.

Our longer-term plan will be announced after the spending review. To drive down carbon emissions and air pollutants, we will give the greatest incentives to zero-emission cars—those that produce no air pollution or CO₂ whenever they are driven—which pay no VAT.

[Mark Field]

I appreciate that the current regime for vehicle excise duty reflects carbon emissions, but I mentioned in an earlier intervention that one of the biggest concerns in relation to clean air, particularly in London, is about NOx—nitrogen dioxide—emissions. That is a particular problem in emissions from diesel vehicles. Will some consideration be given to making that part and parcel of the consultation on adapting this duty in the years to come?

[Mr Gauke]

The view we have taken about NOx is that it is best addressed through regulation, rather than through vehicle excise duty. It is necessary for the Government to use all the tools in the toolbox in these circumstances. We think that that is the right way to address that concern. Indeed, new regulatory standards are being put in place for NOx.

I will, if I may, turn to the £40,000 premium surcharge. A concern was raised that it might slow the uptake of the latest carbon technologies, such as hydrogen fuel cell cars, where price is already a barrier to uptake. In response I would say that the Government are committed to supporting low-carbon vehicle technologies. All manufacturers will need to invest in affordable new technologies to meet their emissions targets, and the Government have committed £11 million through the hydrogen for transport advancement programme to support the roll-out of fuel cell electric vehicles and 12 hydrogen refuelling stations. Fuel cell electric vehicles are also eligible for the plug-in car grant and beneficial rates of company car tax. Hydrogen is also fuel-duty exempt.

Zero-emission cars, even ones with a list price of £40,000, will pay zero first-year rates. Only a small proportion of motorists can afford cars that cost more than £40,000. The most popular cars in the UK cost an average of £15,000, and even the most popular large family cars cost an average of £21,000. It is fair that premium cars—including low-carbon ones—pay more than ordinary family cars.

The hon. Members for East Antrim and for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) mentioned the application of the road fund in the rest of the United Kingdom. Although changes to VED affect the whole UK, the road fund relates only to the English strategic road network, which is managed by Highways England. We are in discussions with the devolved Administrations on how exactly the money is allocated, to ensure that we reach a sensible and fair agreement that reflects the various requirements across the whole United Kingdom. In the meantime, just as for a range of other taxes and spending, the devolved Administrations will receive allocations in the normal way through the Barnett formula, as opposed to an assessment of road use or VED for the various nations of the United Kingdom. I hope that that provides some clarity.

New clause 3, tabled by the SNP, relates to carried interest. We had that debate in Committee, so it is rather familiar territory. I shall avoid the temptation to refer the House to the speech that I gave in Committee on a specific date and suggest that Members look at particular columns—[Interruption.] As the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) says, no doubt the House has already read it but would like to hear it from me again afresh. This point was also touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field).

Carried interest is a reward for a manager that is linked to the long-term performance and growth of the funds they manage. They are therefore capital in nature, and should continue to be charged capital gains tax. The measure ensures that private equity managers pay at least 28% tax on the carried interest rewards that they receive. In addition the disguised management fee rules introduced in the Finance Act 2015 put it beyond doubt that when management fees are received by fund managers, the part of the remuneration that is not variable is always subject to income tax. If any part of the manager’s reward payment is properly regarded as income rather than capital, they will continue to be charged to income tax. The Government have launched a consultation to ensure that rewards that should be charged to income tax are always taxed in that way.

National insurance is not charged on capital returns and is payable only on earned income. Bringing carried interest into income tax could raise more initially, but over time the yield would disappear as the industry moved to more competitive jurisdictions.

That is the essence of the debate, and it is instructive to look back at what previous Ministers, not just from my party but from the Labour party, have said at the Dispatch Box, which is that we have to strike a balance, ensuring that we get the revenue we should get and that we properly tax income—certainly we want to tax income as income—while also ensuring that we have a regime that properly taxes capital gains as capital gains. There are risks if we put in place a regime that is uncompetitive and out of line with what happens in other jurisdictions. The point was made that other countries are looking at this issue and that there could be changes to the taxation treatment of carried interest in other jurisdictions. I am aware that there is a debate under way in other countries, but I am not aware of any concrete action taken by any competitor countries to change the approach that is generally followed. The UK is therefore in line with the general approach.

It is important that we do not allow income to be turned into capital in a contrived or artificial way. It is also the case that, as a coalition Government, we took steps in 2010 to narrow the difference between the rates charged for capital gains tax and for income tax. We increased the rate of capital gains tax. It is interesting to hear the argument in the Chamber today about whether there should be a greater alignment between the two. The last Government took two steps to increase the alignment: the first was to increase the rate of capital gains tax and the second was to reduce the additional rate of income tax to 45%. There is a long-standing structural danger when there is a large disparity between the two, but we should also understand why there have been differences in the rates. It comes from a desire to attract investment and encourage individuals and businesses to invest, which is why there is a separate capital gains tax regime. This is an issue that Ministers from all parties have wrestled with over many years, but by taking action in this Bill to create a greater focus on making sure that income is taxed as income and capital gains are taxed as capital gains, we are putting things on a sustainable and fair footing.

I also note the remarks that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath made about our constituency staff—on other occasions people have referred to cleaners paying a higher rate of tax than their employers—but the changes we have made ensure that we are not in that position. Many of the steps we have taken—for example, to increase the personal allowance—have taken many cleaners out of income tax altogether, whereas the changes we have made to capital gains tax rates have ensured that private equity managers pay a higher rate of tax than they might have paid some years ago.

The suggestion has been made that there is one rule for some and another for others, but the rule we have in place on carried interest ensures that investment managers who are receiving capital returns are taxed to at least 28%, the higher rate of capital gains tax. Any carried interest that constitutes income will be chargeable to income tax. The Government have launched a consultation to ensure that when investment managers should be charged for income tax, they will be.

I hope that is helpful to the House in dealing with the various points that have been raised. As I say, in this first group—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I know that the Minister is concluding, but the points he is making are very important and the Chamber is not a place where people come for a little chat. It is much too noisy. People are not behaving badly in a noisy way; there are just too many people talking just above a whisper. If hon. Members are going to whisper, they should please learn to whisper, because we need to hear the Minister. He is making some important points.

[Mr Gauke]

I am very grateful for your injunction, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Chamber is no place for people to enjoy themselves, and you and I together are going to put an end to that.

A broad range of issues has been debated. I urge the Labour party not to press their amendments on vehicle excise duty to a Division, just as I urge SNP Members not to press their new clause. I believe the reforms we have made to VED are necessary and sustainable. They will ensure the source of finance for the road fund and a more progressive regime that, in terms of first-year rates, fulfils our environmental objectives. On the reforms relating to carried interest, I believe we are making changes that put us on a sustainable footing.

I thank the House for its patience and urge the parties on the Opposition Benches not to press their amendments and new clauses to a Division.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 4 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

Corporation tax instalment payments

‘(1) The Corporation Tax (Instalment Payments) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 (S.I. 2014/2409) are to be treated as always having had effect as if in regulation 1(2) (commencement) “ending” were substituted for “beginning”.

(2) Consequently, for the purposes of the application of regulations 2(2) and 3(5B) of the Corporation Tax (Instalment Payments) Regulations 1998 (S.I. 1998/3175) to accounting periods beginning before, and ending on or after, 1 April 2015—

(a) sections 279F and 279G of CTA 2010 are taken to have effect in relation to such periods, and

(b) paragraph 22 of Schedule 1 to FA 2014 is to be disregarded accordingly.”—(Mr Gauke.)

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6

Carried interest and disguised investment management fees: “arise”

‘(1) In ITA 2007, after section 809EZD insert—

“809EZDA     Sums arising to connected persons other than companies

(1) This section applies in relation to an individual (“A”) if—

(a) a sum arises to a person (“B”) who is connected with A,

(b) B is not a company,

(c) income tax is not charged on B in respect of the sum by virtue of this Chapter,

(d) capital gains tax is not charged on B in respect of the sum by virtue of Chapter 5 of Part 3 of TCGA 1992, and

(e) the sum does not arise to A apart from this section.

(2) The sum referred to in subsection (1)(a) arises to A for the purposes of this Chapter.

(3) Where a sum arises to A by virtue of this section, it arises to A at the time the sum referred to in subsection (1)(a) arises to B.

(4) Section 993 (meaning of “connected”) applies for the purposes of this section, but as if—

(a) subsection (4) of that section were omitted, and

(b) partners in a partnership in which A is also a partner were not “associates” of A for the purposes of sections 450 and 451 of CTA 2010 (“control”).

“809EZDB     Sums arising to connected company or unconnected person

(1) This section applies in relation to an individual (“A”) if—

(a) a sum arises to—

(i) a company connected with A, or

(ii) a person not connected with A,

(b) any of the enjoyment conditions is met, and

(c) the sum does not arise to A apart from this section.

(2) The enjoyment conditions are—

(a) the sum, or part of the sum, is in fact so dealt with by any person as to be calculated at some time to enure for the benefit of A or a person connected with A;

(b) the arising of the sum operates to increase the value to A or a person connected with A of any assets which—

(i) A or the connected person holds, or

(ii) are held for the benefit of A or the connected person;

(c) A or a person connected with A receives or is entitled to receive at any time any benefit provided or to be provided out of the sum or part of the sum;

(d) A or a person connected with A may become entitled to the beneficial enjoyment of the sum or part of the sum if one or more powers are exercised or successively exercised (and for these purposes it does not matter who may exercise the powers or whether they are exercisable with or without the consent of another person);

(e) A or a person connected with A is able in any manner to control directly or indirectly the application of the sum or part of the sum.

In this subsection, in a case where the sum referred to in subsection (1)(a) arises to a company connected with A, references to a person connected with A do not include that company.

(3) There arises to A for the purposes of this Chapter—

(a) the sum referred to in subsection (1)(a), or

(b) if the enjoyment condition in subsection (2)(a), (c), (d) or (e) is met in relation to part of the sum, that part of that sum, or

(c) if the enjoyment condition in subsection (2)(b) is met, such part of that sum as is equal to the amount by which the value of the assets referred to in that condition is increased.

(4) Where a sum (or part of a sum) arises to A by virtue of this section, it arises to A at the time it arises to the person referred to in subsection (1)(a)(i) or (ii) (whether the enjoyment condition was met at that time or at a later date).

(5) In determining whether any of the enjoyment conditions is met in relation to a sum or part of a sum—

(a) regard must be had to the substantial result and effect of all the relevant circumstances, and

(b) all benefits which may at any time accrue to a person as a result of the sum arising as specified in subsection (1)(a) must be taken into account, irrespective of—

(i) the nature or form of the benefits, or

(ii) whether the person has legal or equitable rights in respect of the benefits.

(6) The enjoyment condition in subsection (2)(b), (c) or (d) is to be treated as not met if it would be met only by reason of A holding shares or an interest in shares in a company.

(7) The enjoyment condition in subsection (2)(a) or (e) is to be treated as not met if the sum referred to in subsection (1)(a) arises to a company connected with A and—

(a) the company is liable to pay corporation tax in respect of its profits and the sum is included in the computation of those profits, or

(b) paragraph (a) does not apply but—

(i) the company is a CFC and the exemption in Chapter 14 of Part 9A of TIOPA 2010 applies for the accounting period in which the sum arises, or

(ii) the company is not a CFC but, if it were, that exemption would apply for that period.

In this subsection “CFC” has the same meaning as in Part 9A of TIOPA 2010.

(8) But subsections (6) and (7) do not apply if the sum referred to in subsection (1)(a) arises to the company referred to in subsection (1)(a)(i) or the person referred to in subsection (1)(a)(ii) as part of arrangements where—

(a) it is reasonable to assume that in the absence of the arrangements the sum or part of the sum would have arisen to A or an individual connected with A, and

(b) it is reasonable to assume that the arrangements have as their main purpose, or one of their main purposes, the avoidance of a liability to pay income tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax or corporation tax.

(9) The condition in subsection (8)(b) is to be regarded as met in a case where the sum is applied directly or indirectly as an investment in a collective investment scheme.

(10) Section 993 (meaning of “connected”) applies for the purposes of this section, but as if—

(a) subsection (4) of that section were omitted, and

(b) partners in a partnership in which A is also a partner were not “associates” of A for the purposes of sections 450 and 451 of CTA 2010 (“control”).”

(2) In ITA 2007, in section 809EZA(3)(c), omit “directly or indirectly”.

(3) The amendments made by this section have effect in relation to—

(a) sums other than carried interest arising on or after 22 October 2015, (whenever the arrangements under which the sums arise were made), and

(b) carried interest arising on or after 22 October 2015 under any arrangements, unless the carried interest arises in connection with the disposal of an asset or assets of a partnership or partnerships before that date.

(4) In subsection (3), “arise”, “arrangements” and “carried interest” have the same meanings as in Chapter 5E of Part 13 of ITA 2007.”—(Mr Gauke.)

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.



New Clause 8

Restitution interest payments

‘(1) CTA 2010 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 1 (overview of Act), in subsection (3), after paragraph (ac) insert—

“(ad) restitution interest (see Part 8C),”.

(3) After Part 8B insert—

Part 8C

Restitution interest

Chapter 1

Amounts taxed as restitution interest

357YA  Charge to corporation tax on restitution interest

The charge to corporation tax on income applies to restitution interest arising to a company.

357YB  Restitution interest chargeable as income

(1) Profits arising to a company which consist of restitution interest are chargeable to tax as income under this Part (regardless of whether the profits are of an income or capital nature).

(2) In this Part references to “profits” are to be interpreted in accordance with section 2(2) of CTA 2009.

357YC  Meaning of “restitution interest”

(1) In this Part “restitution interest” means profits in relation to which Conditions A to C are met.

(2) Condition A is that the profits are interest paid or payable by the Commissioners in respect of a claim by the company for restitution with regard to either of the following matters (or alleged matters)—

(a) the payment of an amount to the Commissioners under a mistake of law relating to a taxation matter, or

(b) the unlawful collection by the Commissioners of an amount in respect of taxation.

(3) Condition B is that—

(a) a court has made a final determination that the Commissioners are liable to pay the interest, or

(b) the Commissioners and the company, have in final settlement of the claim, entered into an agreement under which the company is entitled to be paid, or is to retain, the interest.

(4) Condition C is that the interest determined to be due, or agreed upon, as mentioned in subsection (3) is not limited to simple interest at a statutory rate (see section 357YU).

(5) Subsection (4) does not prevent so much of an amount of interest determined to be due, or agreed upon, as represents or is calculated by reference to simple interest at a statutory rate from falling within the definition of “restitution interest”.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (2) it does not matter whether the interest is paid or payable—

(a) pursuant to a judgment or order of a court,

(b) as an interim payment in court proceedings,

(c) under an agreement to settle a claim, or

(d) in any other circumstances.

(7) For the purposes of this section—

(a) “interest” includes an amount equivalent to interest, and

(b) an amount paid or payable by the Commissioners as mentioned in subsection (2) is “equivalent to interest” so far as it is an amount determined by reference to the time value of money.

(8) For the purposes of this section a determination made by a court is “final” if the determination cannot be varied on appeal (whether because of the absence of any right of appeal, the expiry of a time limit for making an appeal without an appeal having been brought, the refusal of permission to appeal, the abandonment of an appeal or otherwise).

(9) Any power to grant permission to appeal out of time is to be disregarded for the purposes of subsection (8).

357YD  Further provision about amounts included, or not included, in “restitution interest”

(1) Interest paid to a company is not restitution interest for the purposes of this Part if—

(a) Condition B was not met in relation to the interest until after the interest was paid, and

(b) the amount paid was limited to simple interest at a statutory rate

(2) Subsection (1) does not prevent so much of a relevant amount of interest determined to be due, agreed upon or otherwise paid as represents or is calculated by reference to simple interest at a statutory rate from falling within the definition of “restitution interest”.

(3) In subsection (2) “relevant amount of interest” means an amount of interest the whole of which was paid before Condition B was met in relation to it.

(4) Section 357YC(7) applies in relation to this section as in relation to section 357YC.

357YE  Period in which amounts are to be brought into account

(1) The amounts to be brought into account as restitution interest for any period for the purposes of this Part are those that are recognised in determining the company’s profit or loss for the period in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice.

(2) If Condition A in section 357YC is met, in relation to any amount, after the end of the period for which the amount is to be brought into account as restitution interest in accordance with subsection (1), any necessary adjustments are to be made; and any time limits for the making of adjustments are to be disregarded for this purpose.

357YF  Companies without GAAP-compliant accounts

(1) If a company—

(a) draws up accounts which are not GAAP-compliant accounts, or

(b) does not draw up accounts at all,

this Part applies as if GAAP-compliant accounts had been drawn up.

(2) Accordingly, references in this Part to amounts recognised for accounting purposes are references to amounts that would have been recognised if GAAP-compliant accounts had been drawn up for the period of account in question and any relevant earlier period.

(3) For this purpose a period of account is relevant to a later period if the accounts for the later period rely to any extent on amounts derived from the earlier period.

(4) In this section “GAAP-compliant accounts” means accounts drawn up in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice.

357YG  Restitution interest: appeals made out of time

(1) This section applies where—

(a) an amount of interest (“the interest”) arises to a company as restitution interest for the purposes of this Part,

(b) Condition B in section 357YC is met in relation to the interest as a result of the making by a court of a final determination as mentioned in subsection (3)(a) of that section,

(c) on a late appeal (or a further appeal subsequent to such an appeal) a court reverses that determination, or varies it so as to negative it, and

(d) the determination reversing or varying the determination by virtue of which Condition B was met is itself a final determination.

(2) This Part has effect as if the interest had never been restitution interest.

(3) If—

(a) the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs have under section 357YO(2) deducted a sum representing corporation tax from the interest, or

(b) a sum has been paid as corporation tax in respect of the interest under section 357YQ,

that sum is treated for all purposes as if it had never been paid to, or deducted or held by, the Commissioners as or in respect of corporation tax.

(4) Any adjustments are to be made that are necessary in accordance with this section; and any time limits applying to the making of adjustments are to be ignored.

(5) In this section—

“final determination” has the same meaning as in section 357YC;

“late appeal” means an appeal which is made by reason of a court giving leave to appeal out of time.

357YH  Countering effect of avoidance arrangements

(1) Any restitution-related tax advantages that would (in the absence of this section) arise from relevant avoidance arrangements are to be counteracted by the making of such adjustments as are just and reasonable in relation to amounts to be brought into account for the purposes of this Part.

(2) Any adjustments required to be made under this section (whether or not by an officer of Revenue and Customs) may be made by way of an assessment, the modification of an assessment, amendment or otherwise.

(3) For the meaning of “relevant avoidance arrangements” and “restitution-related tax advantage” see section 357YI.

357YI Interpretation of section 357YH

(1) This section applies for the interpretation of section 357YH (and this section).

(2) “Arrangements” include any agreement, understanding, scheme, transaction or series of transactions (whether or not legally enforceable).

(3) Arrangements are “relevant avoidance arrangements” if their main purpose, or one of their main purposes, is to enable a company to obtain a tax advantage in relation to the application of the charge to tax at the restitution payments rate.

(4) But arrangements are not “relevant avoidance arrangements” if the obtaining of any tax advantages that would (in the absence of section 357YH) arise from them can reasonably be regarded as consistent with wholly commercial arrangements.

(5) “Tax advantage” includes—

(a) a repayment of tax or increased repayment of tax,

(b) the avoidance or reduction of a charge to tax or an assessment to tax,

(c) the avoidance of a possible assessment to tax,

(d) deferral of a payment of tax or advancement of a repayment of tax, or

(e) the avoidance of an obligation to deduct or account for tax.

(6) In subsection (5)(b) and (c) the references to avoidance or reduction include an avoidance or reduction effected by receipts accruing in such a way that the recipient does not bear tax on them as restitution interest under this Part.

357YJ  Examples of results that may indicate exclusion not applicable

(none) Each of the following is an example of something which might indicate that arrangements whose main purpose, or one of whose main purposes, is to enable a company to obtain a restitution-related tax advantage are not excluded by section 357YI(4) from being “relevant avoidance arrangements” for the purposes of section 357YH—

(a) the elimination or reduction for the purposes of this Part of amounts chargeable as restitution interest arising to the company in connection with a particular claim, if for economic purposes other or greater profits arise to the company in connection with the claim;

(b) preventing or delaying the recognition as an item of profit or loss of an amount that would apart from the arrangements be recognised in the company’s accounts as an item of profit or loss, or be so recognised earlier;

(c) ensuring that a receipt is treated for accounting purposes in a way in which it would not have been treated in the absence of some other transaction forming part of the arrangements.

Chapter 2

Application of restitution payments rate

357YK  Corporation tax rate on restitution interest

(1) Corporation tax is charged on restitution interest at the restitution payments rate.

(2) The “restitution payments rate” is 45%.

357YL  Exclusion of reliefs, set-offs etc

(1) Under subsection (3) of section 4 (amounts to which rates of corporation tax applied) the amounts to be added together to find a company’s “total profits” do not include amounts of restitution interest on which corporation tax is chargeable under this Part.

(2) No reliefs or set-offs may be given against so much of the corporation tax to which a company is liable for an accounting period as is equal to the amount of corporation tax chargeable on the company for the period at the restitution payments rate.

(3) In subsection (2) “reliefs and set-offs” includes, but is not restricted to, those listed in the second step of paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 18 to FA 1998.

(4) Amounts of income tax or corporation tax, or any other amounts, which may be set off against a company’s overall liability to income tax and corporation tax for an accounting period may not be set off against so much of the corporation tax to which the company is liable for the period as is equal to the amount of corporation tax chargeable at the restitution payments rate.

Chapter 3

Migration, transfers of rights etc

(1) Subsection (4) applies if—

(a) a company which is within the charge to corporation tax under this Part (“the transferor”) transfers to a person who is not within the charge to corporation tax under this Part a right in respect of a claim, or possible claim, for restitution,

(b) the transfer is made on or after 21 October 2015, and

(c) conditions A and B are met.

(2) Condition A is that the main purpose, or one of the main purposes, of the transfer is to secure a tax advantage for any person in relation to the application of the charge to tax on restitution interest under this Part.

(3) Condition B is that as a result of that transfer (or that transfer together with further transfers of the rights) restitution interest arises to a person who is not within the charge to corporation tax under this Part.

(4) Any restitution interest which arises as mentioned in Condition B is treated for corporation tax purposes as restitution interest arising to the transferor.

(5) A person is “within the charge to corporation tax under this Part” if the person—

(a) is a UK resident company, and

(b) would not be exempt from corporation tax on restitution interest (were such interest to arise to it).

(6) In this section “tax advantage” has the meaning given by section 357YI.

(1) This section applies where—

(a) restitution interest arises to a non-UK resident company,

(b) the rights in respect of which the company is entitled to the restitution interest had (to any extent) accrued when the company ceased to be UK resident, and

(c) the company’s main purpose, or one of its main purposes, in changing its residence was to secure a tax advantage for any person in relation to the application of the charge to tax on restitution interest under this Part.

(2) The company is treated as a UK resident company for the purposes of the application of this Part in relation to so much of that restitution interest as is attributable to relevant accrued rights.

(3) “Relevant accrued rights” means rights which had accrued to the company when it ceased to be UK resident.

(4) The company is to be treated for the purposes of sections 185 and 187 of TCGA 1992 as not having disposed of its assets on ceasing to be resident in the United Kingdom, so far as its assets at that time consisted of rights to receive restitution interest.

(5) Any adjustments that are necessary as a result of subsection (4) are to be made; and any time limits for the making of adjustments are to be ignored for this purpose.

Chapter 4

Payment and collection of tax on restitution interest

357YO Duty to deduct tax from payments of restitution interest

(1) Subsection (2) applies if the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs pay an amount of interest in relation to which Conditions 1 and 2 are met and—

(a) the amount is (when the payment is made) restitution interest on which a company is chargeable to corporation tax under this Part, or

(b) a company would be chargeable to corporation tax under this Part on the interest paid if it were (at that time) restitution interest.

(2) The Commissioners must, on making the payment—

(a) deduct from it a sum representing corporation tax on the amount at the restitution payments rate, and

(b) give the company a written notice stating the amount of the gross payment and the amount deducted from it.

(3) Condition 1 is that the Commissioners are liable to pay, or have agreed or determined to pay, the interest in respect of a company’s claim for restitution with regard to—

(a) the payment of an amount to the Commissioners under a mistake of law relating to a taxation matter, or

(b) the unlawful collection by the Commissioners of an amount in respect of taxation.

(4) Condition 2 is that the interest is not limited to simple interest at a statutory rate.

In determining whether or not this condition is met, all amounts which the Commissioners are liable to pay, or have agreed or determined to pay in respect of the claim are to be considered together.

(5) For the purposes of Condition 1 it does not matter whether the Commissioners are liable to pay, or (as the case may be) have agreed or determined to pay, the interest—

(a) pursuant to a judgment or order of a court,

(b) as an interim payment in court proceedings,

(c) under an agreement to settle a claim, or

(d) in any other circumstances.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (2) the restitution payments rate is to be applied to the gross payment, that is to the payment before deduction of a sum representing corporation tax in accordance with this section.

(7) For the purposes of this section—

(a) “interest” includes an amount equivalent to interest, and

(b) an amount which the Commissioners pay as mentioned in subsection (1) is “equivalent to interest” so far as it is an amount determined by reference to the time value of money.

357YP Treatment of amounts deducted under section 357YO

(1) An amount deducted from an interest payment in accordance with section 357YO(2) is treated for all purposes as paid by the company mentioned in section 357YO(1) on account of the company’s liability, or potential liability, to corporation tax charged on the interest payment, as restitution interest, under this Part.

(2) Subsections (3) and (4) apply if—

(a) the Commissioners have, on paying an amount which is not (when the payment is made) restitution interest, made a deduction under section 357YO(2) from the gross payment (see section 357YO(6)), and

(b) a company becomes liable to repay the net amount to the Commissioners, or it otherwise becomes clear that the gross amount cannot, or will not, become restitution interest.

(3) If the condition in subsection (2)(b) is met in circumstances where the company is not liable to repay the net amount to the Commissioners, the Commissioners must—

(a) repay to the company the amount treated under subsection (1) as paid by the company, and

(b) make any other necessary adjustments;

and any time limits applying to the making of adjustments are to be ignored.

(4) If the condition in subsection (2)(b) is met by virtue of a company becoming liable to repay to the Commissioners the amount paid as mentioned in subsection (2)(a)—

(a) this Part has effect as if the company were liable to repay the gross payment to the Commissioners, and

(b) the amount deducted by the Commissioners as mentioned in subsection (2)(b) is to be treated for the purposes of this Part as money repaid by the company in partial satisfaction of its liability to repay the gross amount.

(5) Subsections (3) and (4) have effect with the appropriate modifications if the condition in subsection (2)(b) is met in relation to part but not the whole of the gross amount mentioned in subsection (2)(a).

(6) In this section “the net amount”, in relation to a payment made under deduction of tax in accordance with section 357YO(2), means the amount paid after deduction of tax.

357YQ  Assessment of tax chargeable on restitution interest

(1) An officer of Revenue and Customs may make an assessment of the amounts in which, in the officer’s opinion, a company is chargeable to corporation tax under this Part for a period specified in the assessment.

(2) Notice of an assessment under this section must be served on the company, stating the date on which the assessment is issued.

(3) An assessment may include an assessment of the amount of restitution income arising to the company in the period and any other matters relevant to the calculation of the amounts in which the company is chargeable to corporation tax under this Part for the period.

(4) Notice of an assessment under this section may be accompanied by notice of any determination by an officer of Revenue and Customs relating to the dates on which amounts of tax become due and payable under this section or to amounts treated under section 357YP as paid on account of corporation tax.

(5) The company must pay the amount assessed as payable for the accounting period by the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the date on which the company is given notice of the assessment.

357YR  Interest on excessive amounts withheld

(1) If an amount deducted under section 357YO(2) in respect of an amount of interest exceeds the amount which should have been deducted, the Commissioners are liable to pay interest on the excess from the material date until the date on which the excess is repaid.

(2) The “material date” is the date on which tax was deducted from the interest.

(3) Interest under subsection (1) is to be paid at the rate applicable under section 178 of FA 1989.

357YS  Appeal against deduction

(1) An appeal may be brought against the deduction by the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs from a payment of a sum representing corporation tax in compliance, or purported compliance, with section 357YO(2).

(2) Notice of appeal must be given—

(a) in writing,

(b) within 30 days after the giving of the notice under section 357YO(2).

357YT  Amounts taxed at restitution payments rate to be outside instalment payments regime

(none) For the purposes of regulations under section 59E of TMA 1970 (further provision as to when corporation tax due and payable), tax charged at the restitution payments rate is to be disregarded in determining the amount of corporation tax payable by a company for an accounting period.

Chapter 5

Supplementary provisions

357YU  Interpretation

(1) In this Part “court” includes a tribunal.

(2) In this Part “statutory rate” (in relation to interest) means a rate which is equal to a rate specified—

(a) for purposes relating to taxation, and

(b) in, or in a provision made under, an Act.

357YV  Relationship of Part with other corporation tax provisions

(1) So far as restitution interest is charged to corporation tax under this Part it is not chargeable to corporation tax under any other provision.

(2) This Part has effect regardless of section 464(1) of CTA 2009 (priority of loan relationship provisions).

357YW  Power to amend

(1) The Treasury may by regulations amend this Part (apart from this section).

(2) Regulations under this section—

(a) may not widen the description of the type of payments that are chargeable to corporation tax under this Part;

(b) may not remove or prejudice any right of appeal;

(c) may not increase the rate at which tax is charged on restitution interest under this Part;

(d) may not enable any provision of this Part to have effect in relation to the subject matter of any claim which has been finally determined before 21 October 2015.

(3) Subject to subsection (2), regulations under this section may have retrospective effect.

(4) For the purposes of this section a claim is “finally determined” if a court has disposed of the claim by a final determination or the claimant and the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs have entered into an agreement in final settlement of the claim.

(5) Section 357YC(8) (which defines when a determination made by a court is final) has effect for the purposes of this section as for the purposes of section 357YC.

(6) Regulations under this section may include incidental, supplementary or transitional provision.

(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section must be laid before the House of Commons.

(8) The regulations cease to have effect at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which they are made unless, during that period, the regulations are approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.

(9) In reckoning the 28-day period, no account is to be taken of any time during which—

(a) Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or

(b) the House of Commons is adjourned for more than 4 days.

(10) Regulations ceasing to have effect by virtue of subsection (8) does not affect—

(a) anything previously done under the regulations, or

(b) the making of new regulations.”

(4) In TMA 1970, in section 59D (general rule as to when corporation tax is due and payable)—

(a) in subsection (3) after “with” insert “the first to fourth steps of”;

(b) in subsection (5) after “59E” insert “and section 357YQ of CTA 2010 (assessment of tax chargeable on restitution interest)”.

(5) Paragraph 8 Schedule 18 to FA 1998 (company tax returns, assessments etc: calculation of tax payable) is amended as follows—

(a) in paragraph 2 of the first step, after “company” insert “(other than the restitution payments rate)”;

(b) After the fourth step insert—

“Fifth step

Calculate the corporation tax chargeable on any profits of the company that are charged as restitution interest.

1. Find the amount in respect of which the company is chargeable for the period under the charge to corporation tax on income under Part 8C of CTA 2010.

2. Apply the restitution payments rate in accordance with section 357YK(1) of that Act. The amount of tax payable for the accounting period is the sum of the amounts resulting from the first to fourth steps and this step.”

(6) Schedule 56 to FA 2009 (penalty for failure to make payments on time) is amended in accordance with subsections (7) and (8).

(7) In paragraph 1, in the table after item 6 insert—

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Hoey]

I welcome new clause 7 and hope that everyone can unite in supporting it. I do not think it goes far enough, but it is a great step forward, and I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) on introducing it. Many people watching the debate tonight—and I hope many millions of women will be watching it—will have started to ask why we still cannot proceed on the basis of what I think everyone in the Chamber believes, which is that sanitary towels and tampons are not a luxury and we should have the right to decide the level of tax on any product in this country. The people who have listened tonight will know that whatever we say about negotiations and working with our EU partners—let us not forget it is the EU, not Europe—we will not be able to win the argument because the reality is that the European Union wants to maintain control of how we run our affairs in this country. This is the beginning of a hugely important debate on the referendum, and important issues of this kind would never be recognised by the European Union. I hope that the Prime Minister will go and at least negotiate, although I do not think he will get anywhere.

If the Minister really believes in democracy in this country, and given that our Parliament wants this tax reduction, why do we not just do it? What would the EU do if we did? I hope that every Member will support new clause 7 tonight.

[Mr Gauke]

It is a pleasure to respond to the debate. Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) on his debut at the Opposition Dispatch Box—and what a debut it was, consisting of a speech lasting more than an hour. In the time that is available to me, I shall attempt to respond to his speech and, indeed, the many other speeches that we have heard this evening, but let me first deal with the measures that we are discussing.

New clause 9 would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to undertake a comprehensive review of the inheritance tax regime within one year of a current budget surplus. Amendment 89 would remove clause 9 from the Bill, as a result of which the additional transferable nil-rate band for all individuals who leave their home to direct descendants would not be introduced. Clause 9 represents a commitment that was made in the Conservative party manifesto—a promise made to the British people—and recognises that more hard-working families face an inheritance tax bill than has been the case at any time since the introduction of the system nearly 30 years ago.

Last year, 35,000 estates had an inheritance tax liability. It has been forecast that that figure will nearly double, rising to 63,000, in 2020-21. Thousands more worry about leaving their families with inheritance tax bills when they die. The additional transferable nil-rate band will simply return the number of estates with an inheritance tax liability to 37,000 in 2020-21, broadly the same level as in 2014-15. I remind the Opposition that that level is still higher than the level in any year between 1997 and 2010. Furthermore, we have ensured that the wealthiest will make a fair contribution to the public finances through inheritance tax. It will not be possible for the largest estates to benefit from the new allowance. It will be gradually withdrawn by £1 for every £2 that the estate is worth over £2 million.

Those who support amendment 89 demonstrate that they do not understand those who wish to save, pay their taxes, work hard to own their own homes, and pass them on to their children and grandchildren without facing a hefty tax bill. We believe that it is right for people to be able to pass on their homes to their descendants rather than the taxman.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West expressed what sounded like concern about the fact that no properties in his constituency—or very few—would be affected. He also said that he opposed measures taken by the last Labour Government to introduce the transferable nil-rate band. I remind him that in the year in which those measures were introduced, 4.3% of estates paid inheritance tax. If we do not act, some 11% will pay it by 2019-20.

Given the comments that we have heard from the Opposition Front Bench, suggesting that they wish to raise more revenue from inheritance tax, I rather suspect that their desire for a review is connected with their perception of it as a potential cash cow. If I have misunderstood, I am happy to withdraw what I have said, but that seems to me to be the direction in which Opposition Members want to go.

[Rob Marris]

It is not a question of inheritance tax being a “cash cow”; it is a question of whether we maintain the regime that we have now, and the revenue that it brings in, or move to the much more generous regime that the Government wish to introduce.

[Mr Gauke]

The regime as it stands will affect more properties than it did under any of the Labour years. The reality is that if we do not take action, inheritance tax will hit more and more estates. It will be a tax that will be much more widespread than was previously the case. If that is the position the Labour party holds, that is the position, but I think we should be aware of what it is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)]

I put my name to this amendment because I have long thought that this is a bizarre and discriminatory tax on sanitary products and it needs sorting out. Perhaps in the 1970s, when I am sure the Minister like myself was at school, the luxury goods description still made sense as many women were not using a product which has now transformed our ability to be freed up from the monthly restrictions of periods. Many girls at school with me were off games every month because they did not have access to what is now considered a completely normal part of our sanitary products and frees young women to be sportswomen. I ask the Minister to be brave, to think about this and to stand up for all young women.

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks, and I will address that point in a moment.

New clause 7 would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to

“lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement on his strategy to negotiate with the European Union institutions an exemption from value added tax for women’s sanitary protection products”

within three months of the passing of the Act. It would also require a Minister of the Crown to

“lay before Parliament a report on progress at achieving an exemption from value added tax for women’s sanitary protection products within European Union law by 1 April 2016.”

This debate has highlighted the ongoing campaign to zero-rate or exempt from VAT tampons and other sanitary protection products. As we have heard tonight, that campaign has cross-party support. In the case of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), that support goes back many years to when she was at school. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) has also campaigned on the issue for many years, and my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) has raised it tonight and on other occasions, as have many other hon. Members.

As the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) pointed out, this Government sympathise with the aim of the new clause. As we have also heard, however, the UK does not have the ability to extend zero rating to new products unilaterally. We have more extensive zero rating than most, if not all, other member states, but any change to EU VAT law would require a proposal from the European Commission and the support of all 28 member states. Without that agreement, we are not permitted to lower rates below 5%. None the less, as this debate illustrates, there is considerable cross-party support for the UK to abolish VAT on sanitary products. To that end, I undertake to raise the issue with the European Commission and with other member states, and to set out the view, which has been reflected in this debate, that it should be possible for a member state to apply a zero rate to sanitary products. In that context, I thank the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) for raising the matter tonight. We have seen on both sides of the House a demonstration of the belief that that flexibility should exist.

[Sir William Cash]

My hon. Friend used the word “permitted”. We do not have the capacity to effect a change such as this, because of the European Communities Act 1972. He knows that, the Opposition know it, and Members on the Conservative Benches know it. Will he now commit not only to talking about this but to doing something about it? It is a hugely important cross-party issue. Will he please take on board the fact that we insist on legislating on our own terms in this House? We want to govern ourselves.

[Mr Gauke]

I do not want to conceal from the House the fact that we do not have flexibility in these circumstances. Nor do I want to conceal the challenge that we would face in reaching agreement on this. Other member states take a different approach. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow has pointed out, it was striking that the vote in the French Assembly just a couple of weeks ago on an attempt to move the rate down from 20% to 5.5% was defeated. I do not wish to pretend that this would be a mere formality; other member states do take a different approach to this issue.

[Paula Sherriff]

If the Minister is pledging to start negotiations, will he also give us a clear commitment to come back and update the House, and if so, will he tell us exactly when he will do so?

[Mr Gauke]

I would certainly be happy to update the House on any developments at any stage, as and when they might occur. I am happy to give the hon. Lady that reassurance.

[Stella Creasy]

It is incredibly welcome to hear that the Minister is going to raise this matter, but may I press him to be a bit clearer about which environment he will raise it in, and about when we will hear back? Will he also confirm that the European Commission can produce a zero rating if it is declared to be in the public interest to do so? Will he commit to raising that point as part of his negotiations with the European Commission? We all recognise the points that have been made about the technicalities of VAT, but there is a public interest exemption that he could use in his negotiations, is there not?

[Mr Gauke]

It does require a proposal from the Commission and the support of all 28 member states. Just to be clear, this is not a formality.

[Mr Jenkin]

rose—

[Mr Gauke]

I will take one more intervention, but I am conscious that I should allow the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West to respond.

[Mr Jenkin]

Why is it the policy of the Government to argue that it is necessary to have any tax harmonisation in the EU in order for us to have trade with the EU?

[Mr Gauke]

Doing full justice to that question in the five minutes available for me and for the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West would be a challenge. This has been part of the VAT regime since 1973, but on this specific area, as we have heard, time has moved on and it is right that we look again at it.

[Kate Hoey]

Will the Minister just respond to my question: if this is so dreadful and we all want a change, why do we not just do it? What would the EU do if we did?

[Mr Gauke]

It is not just a matter of the EU law; the UK courts would ensure that we have to comply with the law, one way or the other. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) would be happy to explain the position to the hon. Lady, but it would not be lawful for us to reduce that rate.

[Mr Baker]

I have listened extremely carefully to my hon. Friend and he knows how seriously I take this issue. Will he reassure me directly that he will specifically press the European Commission to bring forward measures to zero-rate tampons and sanitary products right across the EU?

[Mr Gauke]

Yes, I will make those representations to the European Commission to allow member states to have the flexibility to do that, which I think is the key issue here.

On the climate change levy, let me briefly explain the policy rationale, as we have debated this on a number of occasions. The climate change levy renewables exemption was misaligned with today’s energy policy, providing indirect support to renewable generators when the Government are now investing in more effective policies that target them directly. Together, policies such as the renewables obligation and the feed-in tariff will provide more than £5 billion-worth of support to renewable electricity generation in 2015-16 alone. I do not believe the report on this clause is necessary. The Chancellor has already written to the Chairman of the Treasury Committee in August setting out the environmental analysis of the summer Budget in 2015.

On enforcement by deduction from accounts, we believe that we are introducing a necessary measure and that we have struck the balance correctly. I am grateful for the remarks made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West in pointing out that the safeguards are strong. I know he still has concerns about the measure, but the safeguards are strong and we believe we are striking the right balance.

To conclude, I urge the House to reject new clauses 1, 2, 7—if it is pressed to a vote, and I hope it will not be—10 and 11, and amendment 90.

[Rob Marris]

On inheritance tax, the Government have not gone far enough. It is not a problem to us that 11% of estates might face it, as that is still a tiny minority, and if the Government were worried about preserving assets, they would have done a lot more about social care for the elderly and what that takes out of their houses. On new clause 1 and VAT on the Scottish police, that was indeed a decision of the Parliament in Scotland, but simply saying, “They were warned” is not good enough. I understand and support the SNP on new clause 1. On new clause 7, I salute the Minister for coming a very long way, but he has not come far enough. The same applies on new clause 11.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the shadow Chancellor for his point of order. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what he has said. It is open to a Minister to do that tomorrow. Given that a Treasury Minister is present on the Treasury Bench, he is welcome to rise to his feet if he wishes.

[Mr Gauke]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

So be it; the House will understand. It is not a matter for the Chair; I am simply playing fair. It is a matter for the Government, and the Minister could speak now if he wished, but he is not under any obligation to do so. The point of order has been heard. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will be in his place tomorrow—and so will the Chancellor be—and we will await the development of events.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I would like once again to briefly outline the provisions of this Finance Bill. These measures demonstrate the Government’s commitment to support working people, support business and protect the public finances by tackling tax avoidance and evasion. They mark the next steps on our path to economic security, building on the economic foundations laid in the last Parliament and continuing our long-term plan for the economic stability and prosperity of this country.

Let me turn first to the support that the Bill provides for working people. This Government are committed to the principle that hard-working people should keep more of the money they earn. That is why, following the measures introduced in the last Parliament, 27.5 million individuals saw their typical income tax bill reduced by £825, but we want to go further. This Bill increases the tax-free personal allowance to £11,000 in 2016-17 and to £11,200 in 2017-18. We will also increase the higher rate threshold, from £42,385 in 2015-16 to £43,000 in 2016-17. The Government also believe that individuals working 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage should not pay income tax. That is why we are enshrining it in law that once the personal allowance has reached £12,500, it will always be at least the equivalent of 30 hours a week on the national minimum wage.

It is a basic human aspiration to pass something on to one’s children, an aspiration the Government are committed to supporting. The Bill will help people to provide for their families after they have gone by phasing in a new £175,000 per person transferable allowance, when a person’s home is passed on at death to their direct descendants. By the end of the Parliament, the effective inheritance tax threshold for married couples and civil partners will therefore be £1 million.

[Mrs Main]

Does my hon. Friend agree that all the very welcome movements in the tax bands for lower earners have helped to readjust the inequality created by Labour when it managed to remove the 10p tax band?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is right. Whereas the previous Labour Government doubled the 10p rate of income tax, this Government and the coalition Government increased the personal allowance very substantially from below £6,500 to the levels I have set out this evening.

I turn now to the support that the Bill will provide to business. We want to provide certainty to businesses, increase investment and improve our infrastructure, because that will drive growth and job creation in the coming years. First, it is clear that we need a business tax regime that is stable, competitive and fair. This is essential to make the UK more competitive and to support growth. In the previous Parliament, the main rate of corporation tax was cut from 28% to 20%, which led to more businesses coming to the UK to carry out their activity. Given the global competition that the UK faces, we must go further. This Bill cuts the corporation tax rate to 19% in 2017 and to 18% in 2020, saving businesses more than £6 billion in 2021 and giving the UK the lowest rate of corporation tax in the G20. The Bill also sets the annual investment allowance at the permanent higher level of £200,000. This will provide long-term certainty to businesses and encourage them to invest in plant and machinery.

Finally, I would like to turn to the measures in the Bill that tackle tax avoidance and evasion, tax planning, compliance and imbalances in our tax system. Hon. Members will recall that the summer Budget announced a raft of measures to tackle those who do not pay their fair share of tax. The measures will collectively raise £5 billion a year by 2019-20. I am proud to say that the Bill will implement a number of those measures and will make an important contribution to the further £37 billion in fiscal consolidation that is required over the course of this Parliament to run a budget surplus by the end of this Parliament.

[George Kerevan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gauke]

Let me make a little progress.

First, the Bill ensures that investment fund managers cannot exploit tax loopholes to avoid paying capital gains tax. We will also address a tax planning risk in which corporate groups could exploit tax rules for asset transfers between connected parties. This ensures that profits are brought to tax.

Finally, the Bill modernises HMRC collection powers by allowing HMRC to recover tax and tax credit debts directly from a debtor’s accounts. This measure will tackle those who seek to play the system and who are avoiding paying their fair share of tax, which they can afford to pay. This measure will also, of course, be subject to robust safeguards and the most vulnerable will be protected. Taken together, these measures will protect our public finances and send a clear message that everyone in Britain must pay their fair share of tax.

[George Kerevan]

In terms of helping business, would the Minister care to comment on press reports this morning that the Government are planning to abolish research grants to industry and replace them with loans, on which interest would be paid?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

That is not a measure contained in the Bill. Let us be clear: as a consequence of the Bill, the UK’s competitive position has been strengthened, not least in a reduction of the rate of corporation tax from 20% to 18%, a measure I am delighted to say that the Labour party supported in Committee.

Before I conclude, I want to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their scrutiny of the Bill. In particular, I want to thank members of the Committee, who provided diligent but efficient scrutiny, concluding our proceedings in just nine hours. This smooth and efficient running was due in part to the support of the Whips, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) and, before him, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin).

I also want to thank the Opposition. We did not always agree in full, especially on the need for a fair number of reviews, but I was grateful for their insightful and reasonable scrutiny and their gracious support where we did agree. Finally, I want to thank the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), and the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), for their support in setting out the Government’s case, and my hon. Friends on the Back Benches for their valuable contributions.

In conclusion, the Bill supports working people and business and protects our public finances, and it marks the next step forward in securing the country’s economic security. I therefore commend it to the House.

Tax Policy

David Gauke Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

At the start of the last Parliament, the coalition set out its ambition to improve the tax policy making process through high levels of consultation and legislative scrutiny. That approach was welcomed by tax professionals, and more than 150 formal and informal consultations on tax changes took place over the past five years. The commitment to publish the majority of Finance Bill clauses in draft was also met.

This approach will continue into this Parliament. Following summer Budget 2015, the Government have engaged with interested parties, seeking their views on more than 20 areas of tax policy for legislation in Finance Bill 2016. The next stage of consultation aims to ensure that the legislation works as intended.

Draft clauses to be included in Finance Bill 2016 will be published on Wednesday 9 December 2015, together with responses to policy consultations, explanatory notes, tax information and impact notes and other accompanying documents. The consultation on the draft legislation will be open until Wednesday 3 February 2016.

[HCWS265]

Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Algeria) Order 2015 Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Sweden) Order 2015 Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Senegal) Order 2015 Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Croatia) Order 2015 draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Bulgaria) Order 2015 Draft International Tax Enforcement (Brazil) Order 2015

David Gauke Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2015 General Committees

[Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Bailey—the first time that I have had the pleasure, I believe. I would prefer, with your permission and that of the Committee, if we dealt with the draft orders on Algeria, Bulgaria, Croatia and Sweden together—I appreciate that that will still lead to four votes—and then, in separate debates, the draft orders on Senegal and on Brazil. Of course, the Minister might have different views on what is appropriate.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

I have no objection to that.

[The Chair]

I should make it clear that debate on the collective group of statutory instruments will continue for up to an hour and a half, although they will be voted on separately. There is then up to an hour and a half on the other two instruments afterwards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Algeria) Order 2015.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Sweden) Order 2015, the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Croatia) Order 2015 and the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Bulgaria) Order 2015.

[Mr Gauke]

Thank you for your guidance, Mr Bailey. I am immediately beginning to regret my assent to that slight rearrangement, but I am sure that all parties will work in a constructive way. Who knows, we might not be here for the full four and a half hours.

Let me start with Algeria. We have a first-time agreement that conforms closely to our expectations and to what Algeria has agreed with parallel countries. It will deliver substantial benefits for UK companies and individuals. The rates of withholding taxes for dividends, following the OECD model, are 5% for direct investors and 15% for portfolio investors. The maximum rates for interest and royalty payments are 7% and 10%, respectively. As is common with a developing country, we have agreed a provision that allows the taxation of services in the country in which they are performed, provided that they last for more than 183 days.

The treaty contains our usual anti-treaty shopping provisions, the latest OECD exchange of information article and an arbitration provision to assist the mutual agreement process, which will be an important comfort for UK companies investing in Algeria. There is also an article providing for mutual assistance in the collection of taxes.

Bulgaria’s treaty policy favours a higher level of source state taxation than is our preference. We have accommodated that to a certain extent and have obtained a similar agreement to those that Bulgaria has signed with other countries in the past five years.

On interest, there are exemptions from taxation at source on interest paid to financial institutions, pension schemes and fellow group companies. On royalties, the European Union interest and royalties directive, which took effect in Bulgaria in January 2015, will eliminate tax on intra-group payments. Dividends paid to UK companies will get the zero rate introduced by the EU parent and subsidiary directive, which took effect in Bulgaria in January 2015, and there is an important carve-out giving the zero rate to pension schemes. In most other respects, the treaty follows our preferences, especially in the adoption of anti-avoidance rules that prevent the treaty from being exploited by residents of third countries.

Let me now turn to the double taxation agreement with Croatia. This is a first-time, comprehensive DTA with Croatia. It will replace the existing 1981 treaty with Yugoslavia. Croatia’s treaty policy favours a higher level of taxation at source than is our preference. We were able to agree to that, however, as it has become a consistent feature of Croatia’s recent approach and, as is the case with Bulgaria, the combination of EU directives and the features that Croatia conceded to us will give us a result with which we are pleased. The treaty notably contains a withholding tax exemption for dividend payments to pension schemes.

We also achieved all our special provisions, such as our anti-treaty shopping measures, which prevent the UK from being used as a conduit, and a measure protecting our taxing right over real estate investment trust dividends.

Turning to Sweden, our existing treaty with Sweden dates from 1983 and although it is working reasonably well it is out of date by modern standards. In particular, the dividends article is defective and anti-treaty shopping provisions are also missing which, combined with Sweden’s general lack of withholding taxes, opens up the possibility of abuse.

The new treaty preserves the positive features of the existing one and includes most of the improvements that we were seeking. In particular, the 5% rate for portfolio dividends is maintained and we will now be able to tax real estate investment trust distributions at our preferred rate of 15%. On pensions, we accommodated Sweden’s wish for more extensive taxation at source, as we have done with Norway and Iceland. We now have a modern treaty, improvements to the dividends article and protection against abuse.

I hope those explanations are helpful to the Committee. I commend the draft orders and am happy to answer any questions that hon. Members might have on the provisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West for his first contribution and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster for his first and perhaps last contribution of the afternoon.

First, I will address the point about format. I understand why the hon. Gentleman raised the point but let me reassure him that all UK treaties follow to a large extent the OECD model, as is the case for most treaties throughout the world, which means that all the treaties appear very similar to each other. The hon. Gentleman would find that treaties that did not involve the UK would also look similar, so it is not so much the UK asserting a particular UK model. This is very much the international rule.

[Rob Marris]

Would that be the case with Algeria, which of course is not a member of the European Union and I believe is not a member of the OECD? Would it still, as far as he knows, tend to follow that common OECD format as a template?

[Mr Gauke]

Yes, that is very much my understanding. I confess I have not studied Algerian double taxation treaties not involving the UK perhaps as much as I might have done, but my understanding is that this model is used very broadly. Clearly there are advantages in terms of standardisation of the model for these treaties. It comes back to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster that double taxation agreements of this sort—tax treaties—help provide greater certainty to businesses. That greater certainty does help encourage foreign direct investment into countries that have treaties. The UK certainly benefits from a very extensive network of tax treaties, but developing countries also benefit from the certainty provided—the signal that a country is open for business. That is mutually beneficial.

I am aware that some critics of DTAs focus on the potential for abuse that they create, either through the creation of opportunities for non-taxation or the flow of benefits to unintended recipients, but such criticisms ignore the fact that measures can be agreed that protect against abuse, and the UK routinely agrees such measures with developed and developing countries alike. I would speak in defence of these tax treaties, from the point of view of both the UK and developing countries.

I suspect we will return to the role of the UK and the extent to which these matters are something of a compromise. I would just make the point that with any of these treaties, it is not realistic to expect any one party to a treaty necessarily to get their way on everything. These are matters on which there is likely to be some compromise.

I touched upon the fact that a lot of countries would place greater reliance on source income as opposed to residence as a test of where the taxable rights should fall. There tends to be a compromise reached, where an acceptable one can be. After all, each of the treaties before us this afternoon is the result of two sovereign Governments agreeing that it is in their mutual interest to sign it. We believe that a tax treaty can be a powerful tool for development because of the certainty it gives to international investors.

I hope those points are helpful to the Committee, Mr Bailey. I suspect I may refer to them again later this afternoon. I hope that, on those points of clarification, the Committee will support the four draft orders.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Algeria) Order 2015.

DRAFT DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF AND INTERNATIONAL TAX ENFORCEMENT (SWEDEN) ORDER 2015

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Sweden) Order 2015.—(Mr Gauke.)

DRAFT DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF AND INTERNATIONAL TAX ENFORCEMENT (CROATIA) ORDER 2015

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Croatia) Order 2015.— (Mr Gauke.)

DRAFT DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF AND INTERNATIONAL TAX ENFORCEMENT (BULGARIA) ORDER 2015

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Bulgaria) Order 2015.—(Mr Gauke.)

Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Senegal) Order 2015

[Mr Gauke]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Senegal) Order 2015.

This is the first time that we have had a double taxation agreement with Senegal. Senegal has only 10 other DTAs, so it was pleasing that it agreed to negotiate one with the United Kingdom. As a developing country, Senegal, not surprisingly, wished to retain a substantial level of source state taxation. The DTA therefore permits the taxation of services when performed in the country for more than 183 days. However, Senegal agreed reductions in withholding taxes on passive income, in particular restricting withholding tax on dividends payable to direct investors to 5% and that on leasing payments to 6%. The DTA also includes the latest OECD exchange of information and assistance in the collection of taxes articles. I hope the Committee will support this order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I very much appreciate that he is probing the Government, as indeed is his role, and I am grateful that he indicated to me in advance that he would probe along those lines.

We do have to bear in mind that such treaties are not a zero-sum game. The hon. Gentleman did not claim that it is, but we have to bear in mind that a concession by one party to the other may well be to their mutual benefit. That is the nature of a double taxation agreement: it helps to provide greater certainty, for example, for businesses investing in a particular country. It prevents double taxation, which would act as an impediment to foreign direct investment. As we touched on in our earlier debate, that is why these treaties help to smooth the flow of investment funds and help countries to trade more closely together, which is an important source of increased prosperity. I make that general point.

More specifically, regarding the Senegal treaty that we are considering today, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured by the fact that discussions on this DTA commenced after an approach from Senegalese officials and not after lobbying by UK multinationals—not that such lobbying would necessarily be wrong. Nevertheless, the process was initiated by the Senegalese. The treaty will provide benefits for UK companies investing in Senegal, and Senegal will also benefit from such investment as its economy develops. Indeed, it is important for a country to be clearly open for business and to provide a tax regime that attracts investment rather than deterring it.

I will touch on some of the specific points that have been made. The hon. Gentleman made a point about the difference in withholding tax. The treaty reflects a compromise after extensive discussions. The balance of source state taxation versus residence state taxation reflects that compromise while providing certainty to businesses, which will encourage investment in Senegal. Cross-border trade will be enhanced, increasing taxable income in both states.

The hon. Gentleman raised a concern about UK multinationals exploiting the treaty to the disbenefit of Senegal. Of course, the Government are well aware that treaties can be exploited by some multinationals, but this treaty contains measures that will allow aggressive exploitation to be challenged by both states. Senegal has subjected this treaty to its legislative procedure, just as we are doing here now, and more widely, non-governmental organisations have acknowledged that the transparent nature of treaties is a positive factor for developing countries. I make the point again that the Senegalese Government initiated the discussions about this treaty and have agreed to the treaty.

On the economic and revenue effects of DTAs, they remove barriers to cross-border trade and investment. The effects of a specific agreement depend on the extent to which activities change as a result of it. Given the long timescales involved, the complex and shifting interactions with domestic law, the unpredictable behavioural effects and the lack of a sensible comparator, it is not possible to provide meaningful estimates of the revenue effects of DTAs, and successive Governments have never attempted to do so. I remember asking questions about the effects of a DTA when I performed the role that the hon. Gentleman is performing now, and I never received an answer. In truth, it is difficult to come up with a sensible number. Overall, however, DTAs are beneficial to the world economy and to participants in them.

A couple of other specific points were made about the Senegal treaty. The hon. Gentleman asked why it does not permit Senegal to tax supervisory activities connected with building sites, but it does allow that. The threshold for the taxation of profits arising from building sites is that the activity be carried on in the country for six months. While supervisory activities are not mentioned specifically in the treaty, the OECD commentary on the relevant provision makes it clear that supervisory activities associated with the erection of a building are included in the taxable activity of the building site.

As for why the treaty does not permit the taxation of royalties paid for radio and television programmes broadcast in Senegal, it provides that generally, royalties arising in Senegal can be taxed in Senegal at a rate not exceeding 10%. The definition of royalties includes payments for the use of, or the right to use, any copyrighted literary, artistic or scientific work, including cinematographic films. The OECD commentary on the provision makes clear that cinematographic films include material for TV broadcast. If the material to which the payment relates is subject to copyright and the payment is for the use of the copyright, Senegal may tax the payment. I hope that provides some reassurance.

[Rob Marris]

I congratulate the Minister on the width of his expertise on taxation in Senegal on cinematographic matters. It is most impressive.

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful. It is recently acquired expertise—[Laughter]. As is my expertise on technical services paid to the UK from Senegal.

Fees for technical services fall within the business profits article of the treaty and can be taxed in Senegal if the fees are attributable to a permanent establishment in Senegal through which the work relating to the fees is performed. That reflects the view of the UK and many other states that business profits should be taxed in the country where the business is carried out. Senegal’s approach to the taxation of services differs from that of the UK. The treaty represents a compromise after extensive discussions, and the provisions governing the taxation of services follow the approach of Senegal in important respects—for example, the taxation of mobile services and insurance.

The shadow Minister asked about DFID. The UK seeks the views of UK businesses and Government Departments on agreements and treaty negotiations on an annual basis. I hope he is reassured that when it comes to overseas development, and in particular capacity building, there is a close working relationship between HMRC and DFID to improve the capability of developing countries when dealing with their tax systems. I am talking not specifically about treaty negotiations but more generally about the capacity to, for example, enforce transfer pricing legislation. A considerable amount of work is done by HMRC and DFID together to provide technical support to developing countries. I strongly support that, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development—a former Treasury Minister—takes great interest in it as well.

There has traditionally been consensus in this country on extending double taxation agreements. The shadow Minister raises perfectly reasonable points, but I hope he is now reassured.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft International Tax Enforcement (Brazil) Order 2015.

This is a standard agreement that sticks closely to the model developed by the OECD and adopted by the UK. It will facilitate exchanges of information on request between the Brazilian and United Kingdom tax authorities and assist HMRC in its tax compliance activities to counter tax avoidance and evasion. I hope the order will have the support of the Committee.

[Rob Marris]

Will the Minister briefly explain why the order is so different from the other ones?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

This is a different type of agreement. It is about tax information being exchanged, as opposed to a double taxation agreement, so it seeks to do different things. This order is about assisting tax authorities to enforce the law. On why this is not a double taxation agreement with Brazil, that would require both sides to reach an agreement. At the moment, at least, Brazil is not prepared to enter into an agreement that we believe would make a tax treaty worth while. I hope that will change in future, because it would clearly be beneficial to the UK and to Brazil. In the meantime, my officials remain in regular contact with their opposite numbers in Brazil and monitor the situation closely.

Question put and agreed to.

Air Passenger Duty: Regional Airports

David Gauke Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

Sir David, it is a very great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) on securing the debate and setting out his case so well. Indeed, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) and the hon. Members for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) and for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey). I congratulate the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles on her appointment as shadow Exchequer Secretary—I speak as a former shadow Exchequer Secretary—and am delighted to welcome her to the Front Bench.

The Government have a long-term economic plan to rebalance growth across the regions and nations of the United Kingdom, strengthening our economy as a whole. That includes the commitment to a major transfer of power to our great cities, counties and nations so that local people can take more control of the decisions that affect them.

As part of that plan, the Government are delivering the Smith agreement for Scotland and will devolve air passenger duty to the Scottish Parliament. In accordance with the St David’s day package, the Government are also considering the case and options for devolving air passenger duty to Wales. In England, the Government are creating a northern powerhouse by pushing ahead to deliver a package of devolved powers to major northern cities and investing in transport and infrastructure. In the north-east, for example, the Government are in good discussions about the potential to devolve further powers and responsibilities to the regions.

[Mrs Spelman]

I am sure that the Minister would appreciate the sensitivity of this issue for west midlands MPs. If he is not going to mention the fact that the Government are in negotiation with the west midlands local authorities about the creation of a midlands powerhouse, we will be a bit disappointed.

[Mr Gauke]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, particularly in the context of a debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull, to refer to the progress that we want to make in the west midlands, which is very much a priority area as well. I was going to touch on that. The case for the midlands engine set out today by my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden is important.

I turn to English regional airports; I know they have expressed concerns that air passenger duty devolution will impact negatively on their business. The Government appreciate those concerns. Regional airports play an important role as local employers and enable the transport of people and products nationally and internationally. That improves connectivity, increases trade and helps to create new jobs. Consequently, the Government are undertaking a review of how to support regional airports in respect of such impacts. That is why the Prime Minister stated earlier this year:

“We are not going to accept a situation where there’s unfair tax competition…We will do what’s necessary to make sure that England’s regional airports can succeed.”

[Drew Hendry]

Does the Minister agree with the points made around the Chamber earlier about the fact that, whether someone is in a regional airport in Scotland or England, the economic growth that can be generated by changing the tax regime to encourage trade will enable all the regions to become more successful? They are not necessarily a threat to each other.

[Mr Gauke]

The Government have made significant progress on the devolution of taxes generally. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the announcement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the retention of business rates, for example. I know that business rates are already devolved in Scotland, but allowing English local authorities to retain business rates is an example whereby through aligning incentives, as it were, we can create the conditions for economic growth in every part of the United Kingdom.

I will deal with the specific points on APD in a moment, but first let me address the issue of the regional airports review, because, as part of that review, the Government published a discussion paper at the summer Budget this year. The paper explored three potential options for supporting regional airports affected by devolution: the first was devolving APD to regions within England; the second was varying APD rates within England; and the third was providing aid to regional airports.

The paper explored how the options could work and highlighted key points for consideration. The period for feedback on the options is now closed. We received a large number of responses and would like to thank all interested parties for their valuable responses to that consultation. We are carefully considering the views and evidence that we have received. We appreciate that the aviation industry values stability and certainty in the UK tax system and we will respond to the views expressed on the options in the discussion paper in due course. The response will set out how the Government wish to take the matter forward.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The Government have devolved APD to Northern Ireland and Scotland. The draft Wales Bill, published today, is glaring in its omission of any mention of APD being devolved to Wales. Is there a reason why the Government are rolling back on devolving APD to Wales?

[Mr Gauke]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the remarks that I made a few moments ago. In accordance with the St David’s day package, we are considering the case and options for devolving air passenger duty to Wales. That consideration is ongoing. Once a conclusion has been reached, I am sure that he will be looking very closely at our response.

If I may, I will respond to some points that have been made in this afternoon’s debate. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) raised the issue of whether APD is a good tax or whether we should just scrap it. It is worth bearing in mind that it raises £3.2 billion each year, which is an important part of the Government’s overall revenues. We consider that APD is a fair and efficient tax that ensures that the aviation sector contributes to the public finances. The amount of tax paid by people who can afford business class travel or luxury jets is much more than that paid by a passenger going to the same destination in economy class.

In recent years, we have reduced long-haul rates of APD and frozen short-haul rates for five years, and we are exempting children. APD is the main way in which the aviation sector is taxed. International treaty agreement means that there is no tax on international aviation fuel and no VAT on international flights. Unlike many countries, the UK does not charge VAT on domestic flights. It is also worth pointing out that the aviation sector is performing strongly. Passenger numbers grew by 4% in 2014 compared with 2013.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) referred in an intervention to a PwC report arguing that abolishing APD would boost GDP, create jobs and pay for itself. We do not agree with the assumptions behind the 2013 and 2015 PwC reports on APD. Our view remains that abolition would have a limited effect on GDP and cause a net loss of tax receipts. As I said, APD makes a contribution towards the public finances. Abolishing it would put pressure on the Government to increase less efficient and more regressive taxes.

[Alan Brown]

The Minister makes the point that APD is one way of taxing the aviation industry and he thinks that it is a fair tax, but will he acknowledge that the UK charges a much higher rate? The UK’s short-haul rate in economy is more than double the EU average; in terms of the medium-haul rate, the UK charges €90, whereas the EU average is €24. The UK is aggressively taxing the aviation industry, and that is what the whole thrust of the debate is about. The Government may want to tax the aviation industry, but we are arguing that our industry is heavily over-taxed compared with those in other countries.

[Mr Gauke]

Our rates are higher than those in many other countries; I am not disputing that. I am arguing that we are not convinced that abolition of APD would pay for itself. Presumably the Scottish Government are also not convinced, because they have not brought forward proposals to abolish APD. It may be an aspiration for the long term—when finances allow—but that does suggest that there would be a loss of revenue.

The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire referred to the experience of Prestwick airport and the effect on tourism—a perfectly legitimate point to raise. As I said, we accept that APD rates are high on an international comparison. However, we think that APD is a very small component of a tourist’s overall spending on a trip to the UK. Some analysis done by Treasury officials over the summer suggests that depending on how long a long-haul passenger stays in the UK, APD probably makes up less than 2% of total spending on travel, hotels and subsistence, so although I accept the point, we have to put it into the context of the wider costs that may apply.

[Drew Hendry]

I am listening to the Minister’s comments about the effect on Prestwick airport. Does he accept that Prestwick, along with other regional airports whose local economies rely heavily on tourism, would be affected exponentially by additional costs for passengers? The Scottish Government’s approach—to reduce immediately and then remove APD—is likely to serve those economies better than taking no approach at all.

[Mr Gauke]

What I will say—this is the case for devolution; I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and I might agree on this—is that we shall see. We have the chance to see whether that approach has an impact on tourism levels in that area. We will be able to see that from the evidence that emerges, and that could help to inform future decisions. We have that flexibility, and the Scottish Government are able to exercise the policy that they think fit for Scotland.

[Dr Whitford]

Do we not have an example available to us in the Republic of Ireland? It got rid of its tax and certainly has reported a massive upsurge in tourism. The point is that when someone is looking at choices of where to go, they do not think about the money that they will spend having a meal out; they are looking at how much it costs to get there and how much the hotels are. The issue is what they see on the internet up front. We are a tourist area, as the Republic of Ireland is, so we would get a similar benefit.

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Lady refers to the increase in tourism in the Republic of Ireland, but according to the last numbers that I saw, the percentage increase was not very different from that for tourism in Northern Ireland. That suggests that APD perhaps is not that significant a factor in bringing tourists to a particular area. In the context of Scotland, however, no doubt the hon. Lady will be keeping a close eye on the impact of the APD changes on the tourism industry in her area, as indeed will the UK Government.

While I am on the subject of Northern Ireland, I shall pick up the points raised by the hon. Member for South Antrim and the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). We do recognise that Northern Ireland is the only part of the country with a land border with another country that has a lower rate or no rate of APD. Many Northern Ireland passengers drive to Dublin to catch flights; I acknowledge that. APD is not the only reason why Northern Ireland passengers travel to Dublin for flights, but I accept that it could well be an important factor.

We have already devolved direct long-haul APD to the Northern Ireland Assembly. It has now set long-haul rates at zero, effective from 2013. We have not had a request from the Northern Ireland Executive, as far as I am aware, for full devolution of short-haul APD. Obviously, we would have to consider any such request if it was made, but the principles set out by the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles do apply when it comes to devolution within a member state of the EU. The funding would have to be found locally, so any cost from forgone APD would have to be taken, as it were, from the Northern Irish block grant. The same principle applies in relation to corporation tax and devolution.

Some people have suggested that the way forward might be to offer an APD holiday, under which new routes could benefit from no APD liability for the first few years of their operation. We recognise that that kind of approach might encourage operators to open new routes—routes that currently do not exist. However, the Government also have a number of obligations to be fair and transparent in how we levy taxes. We would probably have to offer any tax holiday policy to all airports, rather than focusing on regional or underused airports.

The result of such a policy would be that some operators of flights to certain destinations would pay less tax than others that served the same destinations. Existing operators would be placed at a considerable commercial disadvantage. It would clearly be nonsense if two different flights from the same departure airport to the same destination airport were charged different levels of tax. The operator of the more expensive flight would, we suspect, mount a legal challenge against any discrimination, which they might win. There is also the potential for airlines to game any APD holiday. For example, the operator of an existing Manchester-Dusseldorf route might easily switch to Liverpool and/or Cologne to lessen its tax bill, which would offer no advantages to the UK.

[Julian Knight]

The Minister has just mentioned that an operator might switch from, for example, Liverpool to Frankfurt to take advantage of an APD holiday. Surely, they could do that already, because the APD rates are far higher in this country than they are in our competitor economies.

[Mr Gauke]

If there was a dramatically different regime for new routes to and from the UK versus existing ones, there is a risk that there could be a certain gaming of the system. In order to qualify for a lower rate of APD, an operator might attempt to make a relatively minor change to a route, such as flying to a different German airport close to the original one, and thereby replace an existing route with a new one. That would do little to improve the use of, say, Birmingham International airport, as my hon. Friend seeks to do—given the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden, it might be unwise to try to increase the number of users to 36 million—and we would merely see a lot of churn, rather than the increase that my hon. Friend would like. On that and related ideas, we are considering all responses from interested parties to our consultation, and we will respond in due course.

[Drew Hendry]

I am grateful to the Minister for being generous with his time. I believe that he is talking quite a lot of sense on the difficulties with APD holidays, but does he agree that what we need is flexibility over route development? In other words, we need not only starter routes but more frequency on those routes. Indeed, perhaps we need public service obligations to guarantee those routes, which would allow them to bed in, to become established and to reach critical mass.

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman, who is his party’s Front-Bench spokesman on transport matters, raises an important point, but I question whether APD is the correct way of achieving the objective that he seeks. In the context of APD, there are some challenges, and the gaming of the system is one risk.

Having welcomed the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles, I must point out that her shadow Treasury colleague the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris), the shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury, told the House on 29 June:

“I would increase the rate of APD.”—[Official Report, 29 June 2015; Vol. 597, c. 1275.]

To be fair, that was before he was appointed to the shadow Front-Bench team. I do not know whether that is the Labour party’s position. I will leave that question hanging.

[Mrs Spelman]

The message that we are getting, and it is one that the Treasury often has to give, is that relieving the tax would generate a return for the Treasury through increased economic activity. That is the argument that everybody always uses for tax reduction. None the less, will the Minister be clear with us about the timetable for the review of the options to help regional airports, since it was announced in February?

[Mr Gauke]

My right hon. Friend anticipates the response that I would generally make, as Treasury Ministers are required to do fairly regularly, regarding requests for tax reductions or spending increases. I cannot add to what I have previously said about the review. We will respond in due course. This is a detailed and complex area. One thing that has emerged from the debate is the fact that there are complexities, and that unintended consequences can result from pursuing certain policies, so we wish to consider the evidence carefully. We are in the process of doing so, and we will respond in due course to the points raised in the consultation. A number of options have been set out this afternoon and, although the consultation is closed, we will want to look closely at the contributions to the debate to develop our thinking on the matter.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I refer the Minister back to his comment about my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) mentioning in a previous debate that he would be in favour of increasing APD. As has been highlighted by many of the contributions today, we are now working in a different economic landscape in light of the fact that control over APD has been devolved to Scotland. We need to assess the economic impact of APD across the regions, because the playing field is not level. I hope that the Minister will heed my comments in that regard.

[Mr Gauke]

I certainly understand the point that the hon. Lady is making. To be fair, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West made his remarks in June, and I appreciate that that was before he was on the Front Bench. It is a bad habit of Government Front Benchers to point out remarks made by Opposition Front Benchers before they were appointed to the Front Bench, or even selected to be on the Front Bench.

We have recognised the potential impacts of APD devolution, and we are conducting a review to make sure that other cities and regions do not lose out. We are listening to interested parties and we will set out the Government’s next steps in due course. The Government have a long-term economic plan for the great nations and regions of this country, which clearly includes the west midlands. The Government are giving local people more control over the decisions that affect them and strengthening the UK economy as a whole.

ECOFIN

David Gauke Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council was held in Luxembourg on 6 October 2015. Ministers discussed the following items:

Mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation

Ministers reached a political agreement on the text of a Council directive on mandatory automatic exchange on information on tax rulings.

Current Legislative Proposals

The Council took note of ongoing work on financial services dossiers.

Implementation of Banking Union

The European Commission provided an update to Council on the status of transposition of the bank recovery and resolution directive (BRRD), on ratification of the intergovernmental agreement on the single resolution fund and on the transposition of the directive on deposit guarantee schemes.

Capital Markets’ Union

The European Commission presented its action plan on Capital Markets’ Union as released on 30 September, followed by an exchange of views.

European semester—Lessons Learnt

Council held an exchange of views on ways to improve the European semester, based on lessons learnt from the 2015 semester process.

Stability and Growth Pact

Ministers received an update on the current state of play on discussions on common positions on flexibility in the stability and growth pact.

Preparation and follow-up of international meetings

Council received an update on discussions at the G20 Finance Ministers’ meeting on 4-5 September in Ankara. Ministers then endorsed EU terms of reference for a meeting of G20 Finance Ministers in Lima on 8 October and endorsed an ECOFIN statement for the IMFC meeting in Lima on 8-11 October.

[HCWS255]

UK Bilateral Loan to Ireland

David Gauke Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2015 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

HM Treasury has today provided a further report to Parliament in relation to the bilateral loan to Ireland as required under the Loans to Ireland Act 2010. The report relates to the period from 1 April 2015 to 30 September 2015.

A written ministerial statement on the previous statutory report regarding the loan to Ireland was issued to Parliament on 15 June 2015, Official Report, column 1WS.

[HCWS247]

Finance Bill (Fifth sitting)

David Gauke Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. You will recall that in our proceedings on Tuesday, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West asked whether clause 28, relating to councillors’ expenses, would apply to bicycles. I wish to amend my answer as, contrary to what I said then, the exemption will apply where qualifying payments are made to a councillor for travel on their own bicycle, provided that the qualifying payments are below the statutory approved mileage rates. For bicycles the approved rate is currently 20p per mile. I said on Tuesday that I could see the issue would become a big campaign for the hon. Gentleman, so I congratulate him on meeting the objectives of that campaign before he even began it. I fear this may be an auspicious beginning to his Front-Bench career. I apologise to the Committee, and hope that the correction is helpful.

Clause 37

Changes in trading stock not made in course of trade

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider:

Clause 38 stand part.

Clause 39 stand part.

[Mr Gauke]

Clause 37 makes changes to ensure that the correct amount is used when calculating taxable profits when trading stock is transferred between related or connected parties. Clauses 38 and 39 are concerned with the same issue. Clause 38 makes similar changes to those in clause 37 but for cases where a trade ceases; clause 39 does likewise for cases where intangible fixed assets are transferred to a related party.

A number of situations can arise when trading stock is sold or transferred outside the course of trade. The stock can be transferred to a separate business run by the same person, or sold to a business run by a family member. The intention of the tax system is that the stock should always be brought into account at its market value when calculating the taxable profits from the trade—a well established principle that originated in a court judgment many years ago and was subsequently brought into legislation.

Some situations have been identified, however, in which the full market value of stock may not be brought into account. This can occur when transfer pricing rules take precedent over market value rules. Transfer pricing rules aim to identify and bring into account an arm’s length price for the stock. In many situations that will be the same as the market value, but that is not always the case. Where the transfer pricing rules apply, the market value rules are turned off; as a result, there is a risk that the transfer pricing rules will give an amount below market value when calculating profits for taxation, which was not the intention of the legislation. Similar issues have been identified where stock is valued when a trade ceases, and also where intangible fixed assets are transferred between related or connected parties.

Clause 37 is fairly simple. It removes the rule that states that if the transfer pricing rules apply the market value rules cannot also apply, so that where the transfer pricing rules apply in a way that does not give the full market value, the market value rules can be applied, adding the extra amount needed to bring the total up to market value. The true market value will therefore be brought into account when calculating taxable profits. Similar changes are made by clause 38 for cases where a trade ceases, and by clause 39 for cases where intangible fixed assets are transferred to a related or connected party.

Clause 37 removes an unintended consequence whereby two pieces of tax legislation do not, on occasion, work together properly. The changes will ensure that the correct amount is brought into account for tax, as intended by the legislation.

[Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

As I understand it, all three clauses are anti-avoidance measures designed to clear up conflicting legislation on market price and transfer pricing. Transfer pricing has occasionally been used by companies immorally—not illegally, but immorally—to pay less tax, effectively, by not using the market price. As the three clauses are anti-avoidance measures, I invite my hon. Friends to support them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 38 and 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40

Carried interest

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

Sir Roger, I will speak on clauses 40 and 41 and may remark on new clause 2 in anticipation of remarks we are likely to hear from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.

Clause 40 makes changes to ensure that investment managers will pay at least 28% tax on the economic value of the carried interest they receive. Clause 41 makes a change to a definition of disguised management fees rules and supports the legislation in clause 40.

Investment fund managers are rewarded in a range of ways for their work in managing funds. One element of reward is straightforward income in the form of a fee. Hon. Members will recall that we took action in the spring 2015 Finance Act to ensure that fund managers could not disguise management fees as something else in order to pay less tax.

Another key element of the reward involves what is known as carried interest. Carried interest is the portion of the fund’s value that is allocated to the manager in return for their long-term services to the fund. The manager’s reward is therefore dependent on the performance of the fund. Aspects of the UK tax code meant it was possible for asset managers to reduce the effective tax rate payable by them on their carried interest awards; in particular, it was possible for fund managers to pay tax on amounts much lower than their actual economic gains.

The changes made by clause 40 mean that the full amount of carried interest will be charged to tax. Where the carried interest represents capital receipts, it will be taxed at 28% for higher rate and additional rate taxpayers. There will be no extra deduction on account of what is known as base cost shift, which would reduce the amount taxed in the hands of the manager. That will move the basis of the tax charge so that it is the economic gain that is subject to tax. Previously, the carried interest gain was calculated in accordance with the rules on capital gains tax for members of partnerships, but those rules could be interpreted and manipulated in such a way as to reduce significantly the amount of tax payable.

As part of their contract with a fund, an investment manager may be required to invest their own money on similar terms to those that apply to an external investor. To ensure that returns on those co-investments will not be impacted by the change, clause 41 redefines whether an amount is reasonably comparable to the return to external investors. The clause ensures that true arm’s length investments made by the fund manager will not be caught by the new rules.

The clause removes a quirk in the UK tax system that was being exploited in such a way that investment managers were not being taxed on their full economic gain. The changes ensure that capital gains tax will be payable at 28% on the capital element of carried interest received. I therefore hope that clauses 40 and 41 stand part of the Bill.

I would like to make one or two remarks about new clause 2 now, although I will of course respond to what the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath says. New clause 2 proposes two measures: subsection (1) recommends a review after six months of what performance returns should be charged to income, and subsection (2) would define an investment fund manager for the purpose of the new clause.

I am sorry to disappoint Opposition Members, but we will not accept the new clause. It is not necessary to legislate for a review in six months, because the Government have already consulted in this area to ensure that awards will be charged to income tax when it is correct that they are, according to the activity of the fund. The consultation closed on 30 September and we will publish our response, along with any resulting draft legislation, in due course. I dare say that I will have more to say on new clause 2 later this morning, but I look forward to the debate on this group.

[The Chair]

Before I call Mr Mullin, let me explain for the edification of not only new Members but some who are longer in the tooth that the lead amendment—the one that is first on the selection list—is always called first and moved after its introduction. No other amendment is moved at that time. It is not a question of saying, “I would like to move this.”

New clauses are always taken at the end of a Bill, so while they are debated in the context of the subject matter of the Bill, they are moved—if moved at all—at the end of the Bill. So there will be no occasion yet, as Mr Mullin will wish to know, to move the new clause. However, he is absolutely entitled to speak to it, as I am about to invite him to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rob Marris]

Looking round the room, I think that one hon. Member, the Minister, will remember that I was not a member of the last Labour Government when I was previously in the House—[Interruption.] I was “supportive” says an hon. Member from a sedentary position; we will get on to that—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”]. The Minister is well aware of this. I am aware that Alistair Darling, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, cut the capital gains tax rate to 18%. I said at the time that I thought that that was wrong and I have to say now that I think that it was wrong. Furthermore, I have to say, bearing in mind the time at which it took place, that it is shocking that I do not recall in the debate on that change any debate about how it would affect positively many right hon. and hon. Members who at that time, within the rules, owned second properties in London, on which they would accrue a capital gain, and on that capital gain, they would pay a lower rate of 18%. The hon. Member for Croydon South is absolutely right to say that it was the wrong thing to do. Putting it up to 28% is a step in the right direction, but on these measures and these activities of investment fund managers, they should pay income tax on what most people, including me, would regard as income.

As I have said, I have considerable sympathy with new clause 2. I shall listen with great interest when the Minister speaks at greater length about the new clause—he said he would and it would be helpful. Having heard his side, I and my hon. Friends will make up our own minds. We are not only swayed by the arguments for equity, equality and justice; we also bear in mind, as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath mentioned in speaking to new clause 2, the OECD’s recommendation that such incomes should be treated as incomes and be subject to income tax, not treated as capital gain and subject to capital gain tax. To those of us who are not taxation experts, it appears that calling it a chargeable gain is a manoeuvre to lessen the tax paid by those who benefit from that form of remuneration.

[Mr Gauke]

I will respond to the remarks, not necessarily at length. The comments from the hon. Members for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath and for Wolverhampton South West were pithy.

I shall deal straight away with the question of carried interest. Carried interest is a reward for a manager that is linked to the long-term performance and growth of the funds they manage. It is therefore capital in nature and should continue to be charged against capital gains tax. That has been the approach followed by Governments of both major parties for many years, and it is consistent with what happens in many other jurisdictions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South was right to say that capital gains tax was 18% when the Labour Government left office. If I remember correctly, it was possible for private equity managers to benefit from taper relief, so there was often an effective rate of 10% for many years under the Labour Government. There at least seems to be a consensus in the Committee that that was not the right approach. We believe we were right to take steps to change the capital gains tax rate, as we did at the beginning of the previous Parliament, but I would still argue that, as is the case in many jurisdictions, it is perfectly reasonable to treat carried interest as essentially a capital gain issue rather than an income issue. Of course, if any part of a manager’s rewards payments are properly regarded as income rather than capital, they should be charged to income tax. That is what drives the Government’s approach. We have launched a consultation to ensure that rewards that should be charged to income tax are always taxed in that way.

I will just pick up a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. He is correct that national insurance is not chargeable on capital gains; it is payable only on earned income. However, it is not the case that entrepreneur’s relief can be accessed by investment managers, as the activity of the underlying fund is investing, not trading. Entrepreneur’s relief therefore does not apply in those circumstances.

If I were so inclined, I could quote extensive comments from the likes of Ed Balls, when he was a Treasury Minister, in support of the capital gains treatment of carried interest, and that was a period when the gap between income tax and capital gains tax was much greater, but I will spare the Committee that this morning. I am not sure that Ed Balls is a particular hero of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West, but our approach on carried interest is consistent with that of other countries and previous Governments.

We are determined to ensure that the rate at which private equity managers pay tax is never lower than their cleaners pay. That was the case under previous Governments, but it is not the case any more. Nor is it acceptable that what should be charged as income is in fact charged as capital gains. The Government have taken action on those points. I hope that provides reassurance to the Committee and I urge the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath not to press new clause 2.

[Chris Philp]

May I add a further consideration? Given that, as the Minister said, most other countries treat carried interest as capital gain, if we adopted new clause 2 and started taxing it as income, there would be a significant risk that the population of fund managers in London would simply relocate elsewhere and the UK Exchequer would end up receiving less cash instead of more, thus increasing the tax burden on the rest of us.

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend makes a good and important point. In thinking through the impact of the policy advocated by some Opposition Members, we need to understand the international implications and the implications for the UK’s competitiveness. Clearly, any assessment of the revenue effects would have to take account of what are likely to be significant behavioural responses. Claims of large revenue sums may be based on a static analysis, without an understanding that there is also a competitiveness point.

[Rob Marris]

The Minister mentioned Ed Balls. I think the Minister was on a Committee in the position that I am now in when Ed Balls was trumpeting the fact that London had become the financial centre of the world and had surpassed New York because of light-touch regulation. Some of us on the Labour Back Benches pointed out to him that that was a bad move that might end in tears. Sadly, our warnings were more than fulfilled in 2008, with the Lehman Brothers meltdown and what happened in this country. I caution the Minister not to go along with the argument made by the hon. Member for Croydon South that people will go offshore and so on. We should not have had light-touch regulation and we should be careful about regulation now.

[Mr Gauke]

Again, I think we can find some consensus. I will not dwell on this, Sir Roger, because we will depart from the business before us if we start to discuss the failures of the regulatory system in the run-up to the financial crash in 2008. However, that is why we have undertaken substantial reform of financial regulation in the UK.

We should want a competitive and thriving financial sector in this country, but we must ensure that it does not pose systemic risks for the UK economy as a whole. That is the challenge that the Chancellor has referred to as the British dilemma in having a major financial centre, with many benefits to us. It is important that the City thrives. Some of my ministerial colleagues and I have visited the City—I do not know whether everyone can say that. However, we must ensure that we have a regulatory system that does not impose greater risks on the overall taxpayer. There is a question of judgment here, and ensuring that we have a thriving private equity industry is something we should welcome.

[Roger Mullin]

To clarify, we do not intend to press the new clause or any of our earlier measures to a vote at this stage, but we will return to them on Report, when we will also take account of the remarks the Minister just made, which I will want to challenge.

[Mr Gauke]

I very much look forward to debating this matter in future. I have said what I wanted to say. The Government are determined to ensure that income is taxed as income, and we have narrowed the gap between the rates of income tax and capital gains tax. I think that we are getting the balance right and we see that in the clauses we are considering today.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

New clause 2 would have been taken at the end of the Bill, but Mr Mullin has indicated that he does not wish to move it, so that is now academic.

Clause 42

Vehicle excise duty

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 5—VED rate: impact on carbon dioxide emissions—

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within two years of the passing of this Act, undertake a review of the impact of introducing a flat rate of Vehicle Excise Duty for all cars regardless of carbon dioxide emissions, except those with zero-emissions.

(2) The review must address (but need not be confined to):

(a) the impact on the UK car manufacturing industry, and ancillary industries, of introducing such a flat rate;

(b) the impact (including the environmental impact) of such a flat rate on sales of low-emissions vehicles; and

(c) the impact of such a flat rate on Exchequer revenue.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a “low-emissions vehicle” is a light passenger vehicle the carbon dioxide emissions of which exceed 0 g/km but do not exceed 100 g/km.

(4) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must promptly lay a report of the review before both Houses of Parliament.’

[Mr Gauke]

The clause reforms vehicle excise duty to support uptake of the cleanest cars. It also addresses the current system’s unfairness and sustainability challenges. The reformed VED will apply to cars first registered from 1 April 2017 onwards. The reformed tax will raise the same revenue as today, but the changes will ensure that revenues are sustainable in the long term. It supports creation of a new roads fund, so that from 2010 all revenue raised from VED in England will go into the fund, which will be invested directly back into the English strategic road network.

I will set out why the Government believe the current system needs changing. VED for post-2001 cars is currently banded according to carbon dioxide emissions for both first-year rates and annual standard rates. The current CO₂ bands are out of date. They were introduced in 2008, when average new car emissions were 158 grams of CO₂ per kilometre. Today they are 125 grams of CO₂ per kilometre, so owners of many ordinary new family cars such as the Ford Fiesta now pay nothing or next to no VED, and by 2017 owners of nearly three quarters of new cars will pay only £30 a year or less. That has weakened the incentives for people to purchase the cleanest cars.

Clearly that level of revenue is unsustainable. It also creates unfairness. The average VED across all UK motorists is £166, whereas the average VED on a brand-new car is only £85, which will fall to £62 by 2017. Therefore, families who can only afford older cars are increasingly shouldering more of the tax burden than those who can afford to buy a new model every few years. Evidence from studying car purchase decisions across Europe suggests that the first-year rates of VED are the most effective in influencing people’s choices to buy efficient cars. VED annual standard rates are less effective, as people place little weight on future costs, so basing VED annual standard rates on CO₂, as the current system does, has little impact on environmental outcomes, causes significant unfairness and makes revenues unsustainable.

Changes made by the clause maintain first-year VED rates based on CO_2, but five new VED bands in the nought to 100 grams of CO₂ per kilometre range will be created. The new bands will distinguish between zero-emission cars, plug-in and hybrid vehicles and efficient, conventionally fuelled cars. The very cleanest zero-emission cars that produce no air pollutants will pay nothing; rates on the most polluting cars will be increased. The changes strengthen the incentive to purchase the cleanest cars and incentivise continued improvement by manufacturers. For all subsequent years, the new VED system moves to a flat standard rate of £140 for all cars except zero-emission cars, which pay nothing. There will be a standard rate supplement of £310 for cars worth more than £40,000 to apply for the first five years on which the standard rate is paid.

These changes improve fairness for all motorists, strengthen environmental signals and sustain revenues in the long term. No one will pay more in tax than they do today for the car they already own. For cars in the new system, around 95% of motorists will pay less than the average £166 they pay today. The change will put revenues on a sustainable path, but the total car VED burden will not increase. The change updates and strengthens incentives to purchase the cleanest cars and particularly incentivises the uptake of fully zero-emission cars. Their uptake will drive the greatest reduction in carbon emissions reductions as well as air pollutants.

I would like to say a few words about new clause 5 before the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West has a chance to speak on it. New clause 5 would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer, within two years of enactment, to undertake a review of the impact of introducing a flat rate of VED on the automotive sector, on emissions and on revenue. The new clause calls for such a review within two years of Royal Assent, but hon. Members should note that that would be only approximately eight months after the reforms actually came into effect.

The new clause is not necessary. The Chancellor already announced in the summer Budget that we will do precisely that kind of review as necessary, to assess how the arrangement works in practice and to ensure that the reforms continue to incentivise the cleanest cars. Adopting a flat annual rate of VED while strengthening support for the cleanest cars ensures the change is a fair, simple and sustainable solution able to provide long-term certainty for the UK car market.

Clause 42 strengthens incentives to purchase low-emission cars over efficient conventionally fuelled cars. It sustains VED revenues, allowing for the creation of the roads fund, and it will improve fairness for UK motorists. I stress that the proposed new clause is entirely unnecessary.

In conclusion, clause 42 reforms VED for cars first registered from 1 April 2017. It ensures the tax keeps pace with technological change, is fairer, simpler and sustainable in the long term, and it allows for the creation of a new roads fund, which will ensure our national road network gets the multibillion pound programme of investment it needs. I therefore urge that the clause stands part of the Bill, and hope to persuade the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West not to press new clause 5.

[Rob Marris]

With your permission, Sir Roger, I will start by addressing clause 44 in the group, lest I forget it. Have I understood that correctly?

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Matheson]

I feel I ought to add my congratulations to my hon. Friend on his research. He seems to be doing an impressive job. I was also impressed by the recommendation he gave about Honest John in The Daily Telegraph—I might cancel my Saturday subscription to the Morning Star and take the Telegraph instead.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is entirely legitimate to build environmental considerations into the taxation system if we want to change people’s habits in order to protect the environment, and the clause gives the impression that the Government are once again rolling back from their pledge to be the greenest Government ever and falling into bad old ways.

There is a way out. Perhaps the Minister should take a pause on the clause, as my hon. Friend suggested, because so much of it is predicated on emissions standards that have been thrown into turmoil by one company, which was not a British company—I do not believe that a British company would partake in such skulduggery. We cannot be absolutely sure that emissions standards across the industry are as they should be, because manufacturers in certain areas have been telling us, shall we say, statements that lack 100% veracity.

It is not only that motorists have been hoodwinked. The Government have potentially lost revenue as a result of emissions figures being massaged, with lower figures given. What are the Minister’s intentions, either through the Bill or perhaps more appropriately through another mechanism, on claiming back any revenue lost as a result of the Volkswagen scandal? The state has lost revenue as a result, so taxpayers have been hoodwinked as well as individual motorists, and although the Bill might not be the right mechanism for this, there must be a role for the Government in chasing down such manufacturers. Perhaps the Minister should not push through new measures linked to emissions standards until he and his colleagues in the Department for Transport are sure that a fair taxation system can be based on those standards. The Minister may wish to heed my hon. Friend’s good advice.

[Mr Gauke]

Let me try to respond to the points made. On the environmental incentives, consumer research suggests that VED is not an important factor in purchase decisions. Where VED has been shown to play a supportive role is in the highly visible first-year rates. In those we have retained, and indeed strengthened, the environmental signal: for example, first-year rates will double for the most polluting cars.

To drive real emissions reductions in transport, we need to incentivise the uptake of fully zero-emission cars such as pure electric cars. Owners of such cars will pay nothing in the VED system, while highly polluting cars will see a doubling of their rate. As more expensive cars are generally more polluting, it is the case that owners of such cars will continue to pay more than those of smaller, efficient cars through the standard rate supplement.

The point made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West about the number of cars in the lowest band was correct. We are deliberately tightening the incentives at the bottom end. The current structure provides little incentive to buy a car much cleaner than 100 grams of CO₂ per kilometre and we believe that such an incentive should be there. It is also worth making the point that nobody’s VED on their existing cars will go up. I made that point earlier, but I want to reiterate it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West will let us know what he wants to do about new clause 5 when we reach the appropriate moment.

Clause 44

Aggregates levy: restoration of exemptions

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

[Mr Gauke]

Clause 44 makes changes to ensure that the aggregates levy will no longer be due on less environmentally damaging sources of aggregate, including waste from slate, and ball and china clay production. It ensures that exemptions found lawful by the European Commission are reinstated, with retrospective effect from 1 April 2014. Finally, it changes the former shale aggregate exemption to reflect the European Commission’s decision that part of the exemption provided unlawful state aid.

The Government believe it is right that the aggregates levy is used to encourage more efficient quarrying by shifting demand towards less environmentally damaging sources of aggregate. The levy was therefore designed with exemptions for recycled aggregates and by-products of other industrial processes, such as slate or ball and china clay waste. However, following legal action from a UK trade association, the European Commission launched an investigation into several of the aggregates levy exemptions on state aid grounds. During the investigation, the Government were required to suspend the aggregates levy exemptions, which were removed by the Finance Act 2014. The Commission announced on 27 March 2015 that it had found all the exemptions lawful except for part of the shale exemption, namely for shale aggregate that is not produced as a by-product of untaxed materials.

Clause 44 will restore in full the exemptions that were suspended on 1 April 2014, except for the shale exemption. It repeals the removal of the levy exemptions in the 2014 Act, so that they are reinstated with effect from 1 April 2014, the date from which they were originally suspended. Businesses were able to stop paying the aggregates levy on materials covered by the reintroduced exemptions from 1 August 2015. They can also reclaim levies that they have paid on such materials since the exemptions were suspended. To provide clarity to businesses, details of the repayment process have been published by HMRC in a Revenue and Customs brief, ending the uncertainty that businesses such as slate quarries in Wales and ball and china clay quarries in south-west England have faced since the start of the Commission investigation. We estimate that some 120 businesses will be able to claim repayment of the levy for reinstated exemptions.

Clause 44 will also change the former shale exemption, with only the part of the exemption found lawful by the Commission being reinstated. A new exemption process for shale will be introduced so that only shale used for construction purposes, which includes shale aggregate, and shale produced as a by-product of other taxed materials will be taxable under the aggregates levy.

To conclude, clause 44 will reinstate the aggregates levy exemptions found lawful by the European Commission with retrospective effect from 1 April 2014 and change the former shale exemption in line with the Commission’s decision. It will restore the environmental aim of the levy to shift demand towards less environmentally damaging sources of aggregate by exempting such materials once again.

[Rob Marris]

It may surprise hon. Members to know that aggregates are dear to our heart in Wolverhampton, which was the site of the headquarters of Tarmac, as was, which grew to be one of the biggest aggregates companies in the European Union. I am pleased that the coalition Government were able to persuade the European Commission that the 2002 regime introduced by the then Labour Government was not unlawful state aid and that the decision made in March this year went in favour of our country. It is unsurprising that HMRC now wants to sort out the shouting, it being all over bar the shouting for the 120-odd companies that were caught up while that investigation was ongoing. The clause is an entirely sensible way of going about that, so I invite my hon. Friends not to oppose it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46

International agreements to improve compliance: client notification

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

[Mr Gauke]

Clause 46 amends section 222 of the Finance Act 2013 to allow regulations to be made requiring financial institutions and tax advisers to provide their clients with information regarding the automatic exchange of information on financial accounts between tax authorities. The purpose of the power is to support the Government’s ongoing strategy for tackling offshore evasion.

The UK has been an international leader in implementing the automatic exchange of information agreements, including through our G8 presidency. In 2012 we were the first country to sign an enhanced automatic tax information exchange agreement with the United States. In 2013 we signed similar agreements with our Crown dependencies and overseas territories and launched an initiative for multilateral exchange on a global scale. We have since played a leading role in the development and early implementation of the new global standard, known as the common reporting standard or CRS.

To date, 95 countries and jurisdictions have committed to begin sending information automatically under the CRS in 2017 or 2018. As a result, HMRC will receive information on a wide range of financial accounts and investments, of both individuals and entities, from financial centres the world over. That represents a step change in HMRC’s ability to crack down on offshore tax evasion. To coincide with that substantial increase in the flow of information on offshore accounts, we will be introducing a significantly tougher approach towards those who continue to evade their taxes. We have been consulting on a range of enhanced penalties and criminal offences.

In advance of the CRS data being received and the ramping up of penalties, there will be a last chance for people to come forward voluntarily to pay their tax, interest and penalties. That is not a soft touch by any means, and prosecution remains an option for the worst offenders. However, providing notice and a final opportunity for voluntary disclosure is appropriate as voluntary disclosure is a practice we want to encourage. In addition to media campaigns and other communications, the powers introduced by the clause will support the disclosure process. We know from previous experience that direct communication with a customer about their accounts, whether from HMRC, their account provider or their adviser, can be an effective means of communication, getting the message across and influencing behaviour.

The power will allow notification requirements to be placed on businesses that are likely to have advised clients about offshore accounts or to have helped to set up offshore accounts, which includes financial intermediaries, tax advisers and law firms in the UK and overseas subsidiaries of such UK businesses. Under the regulations it will be possible to specify the timing, form or manner of notifications. The scope of the power allows us to enact regulations to ensure that notifications are effectively targeted and proportionate. To that end, we will be consulting closely with the financial services industry as the regulations are drawn up.

I am aware that regulations made under this power will impose burdens on financial institutions, although we do not expect such burdens to be large. However, it is right that financial institutions should play their part in rooting out evasion that increases the burden on honest taxpayers. I am pleased to report that stakeholders to whom we have spoken are generally supportive.

Our current expectation is that the regulations will require financial intermediaries and advisers to notify their UK customers or clients who are known to have, or are likely to have, an offshore account. The regulations are expected to require that they provide such customers with the following information: first, that data on offshore accounts are being collected and will be reported to HMRC from 2017 by 95 other tax authorities; secondly, that HMRC will open a final time-limited disclosure facility in 2016 to regularise their affairs, as necessary, before the data are received; and, thirdly, that there will be a range of penalties, including possible prosecution, for those who continue not to pay the tax they owe.

As noted, we are consulting closely with the industry as the regulations are drawn up to ensure that they are workable, proportionate and effective. We also intend to discuss the possible use of this power to support other tax authorities on a reciprocal basis. Regulations under clause 46 would allow us to require those within scope to notify clients with accounts in the UK who reside in another country about the exchange of data. We would propose to put in place such a requirement only if that other country did likewise as regards accounts held by UK residents within its territory.

This clause forms an important part of our wider strategy to tackle tax evasion. It is a targeted tool to inform offshore account holders both the significant amount of data that HMRC will receive on their financial accounts and make them aware of the opportunity to disclose and the significant penalties that can be applied if they do not. I therefore hope that the clause stands part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

Before I call the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West, I have to remind hon. Members that unless and until the recommendation of the Chairman of Ways and Means is adopted by the House—it has not happened yet—the Chairman has no power to suspend the sitting at 1 o’clock. It is therefore up to the Government Chief Whip to move the Adjournment at the time that he feels appropriate; and if he does not do so, you do not get any lunch.

[Rob Marris]

Clause 46 is a step forward. I congratulate, with one cheer, the Government on that, but it is a small step. The common reporting standard comes in, I think, from 2017. The Government are talking now about another amnesty. How many amnesties can we have? Hon. Members will remember the CD of information on tax evaders that leaked out of Switzerland and was used constructively by several other countries in Europe to clamp down on those of their citizens who had illegally squirrelled away money in Switzerland. My recollection is that we had some kind of amnesty in the United Kingdom for such citizens and, lo and behold, when the Swiss papers—the Swiss bank records—were finally opened several months later, the money had all gone walkies and the amount that the Chancellor of the Exchequer got in was far less than he had been proudly trumpeting would be recovered by HMRC because of that information.

I fear that the same may happen in this case. The clause is a step forward. As for the regulations, which are being consulted on, I say to the Minister that I have not seen it anywhere—it may be somewhere—that this advice should be given in writing and recorded in writing by the financial adviser. That would be a step forward, but a greater step forward to protecting the Revenue from this offshoring avoidance, if not evasion, would be, as I said to the Committee two days ago, to have much more pressure from Her Majesty’s Government on transparency, on beneficial ownership and on the tax havens around the world, which assist aggressive tax avoidance and sometimes assist, perhaps unknowingly, with tax evasion. Many of those tax havens, whether Crown dependencies or otherwise, have a relationship with the United Kingdom. We have considerable leverage there and, in terms of what is disclosed publically, Her Majesty’s Government—both this Government and the previous, coalition Government—have not used that leverage as decisively as we on the Labour Benches would wish.

This externalising of costs to financial advisers, although understandable and welcome, is an externalising of costs, so the financial adviser has to remind the client of the penalties for undertaking certain types of financial transactions. Meanwhile, the number of staff at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, who are one of the lines of defence against aggressive tax avoidance, is being slashed by one quarter, as I understand it, from 70,000 to 52,000 in the period 2010 to 2016. I would be delighted if the Minister could tell me that I have got that figure very wrong—I may have got it wrong slightly around the edge. If he could tell me that the number of HMRC staff is in fact being increased as part of a Government measure to increase markedly the number of staff who can help to crack down on aggressive tax avoidance and illegal tax evasion, I would be delighted, but I fear that he will not reassure me that there has been a major increase in staff. So, although the clause is a step in the right direction, it is nibbling around the edges. A much stronger and more effective way forward would be to have a larger number of properly trained HMRC staff investigating and applying pressure, and the legislation that already exists.

[Mr Gauke]

I welcome the support for the clause, even if the enthusiasm for it was somewhat limited. I will not dwell at length on the wider issues raised by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West, but it is worth pointing out that we have been a world leader in our pursuit of tax evaders. It is a driving force behind the implementation of the common reporting standard, to which all overseas territories and Crown dependencies have signed up. It is also worth pointing out that HMRC has the option to prosecute where it deems that suitable and where it is in the public interest. We are also currently consulting on tougher penalties, including new civil and criminal offences.

The common reporting standard will give HMRC access, for the first time, to data about accounts held by UK residents in over 90 countries, which will make a significant difference to HMRC’s ability to crack down on tax evasion. We are also toughening up the penalties for those engaged in tax evasion. HMRC has been consulting on new criminal offences for corporates and individuals and on new penalties, including applying to the underlying asset for individuals and enablers. The Government will report on the outcome of the consultations shortly. Disclosure facilities are one of a number of approaches—we are also introducing tougher sanctions against those who abuse the rules—and the disclosure facilities have brought in more than £2 billion in tax.

[Rob Marris]

Can the Minister say briefly what the Government are doing about disclosure of beneficial ownership?

[Mr Gauke]

The UK is introducing a central register that is publicly available. We are leading the way on that; I am not aware at the moment of any other jurisdictions elsewhere that are pursuing that. We believe that we should set the benchmark, so I am pleased that we as a country are leading the way.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned HMRC resources and so on. He referred to headcount. He will be aware of the dramatic reductions in headcount that occurred under the last Labour Government. In the last Parliament, we invested more than £1 billion in HMRC to tackle evasion, avoidance and non-compliance between 2010 and 2015. We made more than 40 changes in tax laws, closing loopholes and introducing major reforms to the UK tax system. I think most people would agree that it is much harder to avoid and evade taxes now than it was five years ago. Over this Parliament, up to 2020-21, we will be investing more than £800 million in funding in HMRC for matters relating to evasion and general non-compliance, which will help HMRC tackle evasion.

We have a proud record. It is not purely about staff numbers, although as it happens, enforcement and compliance numbers were not reduced in the last Parliament; the reductions in head count were generally within personal tax. It is not simply about headcount; it is about making use of technology and information and acting efficiently. We have a proud record on that front and we will continue in that vein. The clause is part of that process.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Mel Stride)]

I beg to move,

That further consideration be now adjourned.

Finance Bill (Sixth sitting)

David Gauke Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 11 and 12.

That schedule 8 be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

I welcome you back to the Chair this afternoon, Sir Roger; I am delighted to see you.

Clause 47 and schedule 8 introduce new means for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to recover tax and tax credit debts from debtors who refuse to pay. The changes will allow HMRC to recover debts directly from the debtor’s bank and building society accounts, subject to a number of robust safeguards. That will help to level the playing field between hard-working, honest taxpayers and those who seek to play the system and avoid paying debts that they can afford to pay. It will also help to modernise HMRC’s debt collection powers, bringing them in line with those of many other advanced economies.

I would like briefly to explain the context for the changes being introduced, as it is important to understand how this new method of enforcement will complement HMRC’s existing procedures. The UK is a very tax-compliant nation. Last year, £518 billion revenue was paid by 50 million taxpayers. Around 90% of that was paid on time. The remaining 10%—around £50 billion—was not paid on time and was perceived by HMRC as a debt. Most of those with a debt simply need an additional reminder before they pay. Others are businesses and individuals who may be temporarily struggling, unable to pay the full amount that they owe.

HMRC takes a sympathetic approach to those who are in genuine financial difficulty. That includes support through time to pay agreements, allowing people to pay their tax in instalments over a longer time period. There are others who find themselves in a vulnerable position—perhaps because they are going through a difficult time in their lives—and find it a struggle to keep on top of everyday matters such as tax. In those cases, HMRC will provide the additional support that is required. For example, HMRC has established its well-received needs enhanced support service, which offers the appropriate support, including home visits, for HMRC customers who are struggling with their obligations. However, a persistent minority do not respond to HMRC’s repeated attempts at contact and do not require additional help. It is for that group that HMRC uses stronger powers as a last resort.

We should be clear that this measure will apply to the small population of debtors who are refusing to pay what they owe, despite having significant assets in their bank and building society accounts. Almost half of them have more than £20,000 in readily available cash, but are choosing not to pay their tax and tax credit debts. It cannot be fair that some should be able to abuse the process in that way. It is not fair on the people who pay what they owe on time and it imposes costs that are borne by every taxpayer.

The changes made by clause 47 and schedule 8 will allow HMRC to recover funds directly from the bank and building society accounts of those who refuse to pay. In explaining how those changes work, I would like to address three misconceptions about this power.

First, I will address the perception that there is no independent oversight of this power, that HMRC will act as “judge and jury”, and that it cannot be trusted to use these powers responsibly. Independent oversight is embedded in the legislation and debtors will have the opportunity to appeal against the use of the power. Before the stage of direct recovery is reached, taxpayers have the right to challenge and appeal against their liabilities before they go overdue and become debts. These existing rights are unaffected by the changes, and this power will only ever apply to established debts once the appeal process has concluded.

Furthermore, if a “hold notice” is sent to the debtor’s bank or building society to hold moneys up to the value of the debt owed, there is a 30-day window before any funds can be transferred to HMRC. During this time, the debtor can object to HMRC on specified grounds. If they do not agree with HMRC’s decision, they can appeal to a county court.

I understand that some people would argue that a court judgment should always be obtained before that power is used. However, the purpose of this measure is to focus on those who seek to frustrate HMRC’s attempts to recover money owed, including debtors who rely on HMRC taking up costly and lengthy interventions before they agree to settle. These debtors owe, on average, around £7,000 in tax or tax credit debts, and almost half of them have more than £20,000 in their bank and building society accounts.

The power will also be used transparently. HMRC will publish regular statistics on its use, including the number of objections and appeals that are filed and upheld. The Government have also committed HMRC to lay a report before Parliament once the power has been in use for two years.

Secondly, I will address the concern that HMRC will make mistakes and use this power against innocent parties. This is not a measure that will be used lightly, and every case will be assessed by a dedicated team before any action is authorised. However, the Government have listened carefully to the concerns that have been raised, including by those representing vulnerable members of the public and by respected members of the tax agent community. In response to their feedback, the Government have committed that every person whose debts are considered for direct recovery will receive a guaranteed visit from an HMRC officer. This will be an opportunity for debtors to have a face-to-face conversation about their debt, confirm beyond any reasonable doubt their identity and give them another opportunity to pay.

If a payment in instalments is appropriate, that route will be offered, and if the debtor is identified as vulnerable, or needs additional support, they will be referred to a specialist unit and explicitly ruled out of debt recovery through this power.

Finally, I will address the misconception that the moment a tax bill is owed, HMRC will be able to “dip its hands” into someone’s bank account. That could not be further from the truth. As I have explained, this power is a “bolt-on” at the end of a very long process during which HMRC will take every opportunity to recover the established debt that is owed. The power will target those who are making an active decision to delay paying what they owe. Out of the 50 million taxpayers that it serves, HMRC expects to use this power in around 11,000 cases per year. It will only apply to those who have debts of more than £1,000, and a minimum level of £5,000 in funds will be safeguarded in the debtor’s accounts to cover essential living expenses.

I turn to the Government amendments. We have always been clear that vulnerable customers should not be affected by the powers. Our amendments are a result of continued collaboration with the tax agent community and the voluntary and community sector, and I put on the record my gratitude for the advice and expert insight that those groups have given to us. Through this process of open and transparent consultation, we are now able to demonstrate in legislation the strength of the Government’s commitment to protecting vulnerable customers.

Amendment 12 puts a duty on HMRC officers to consider whether debtors may be put at a particular disadvantage if this power is applied to them, and it imposes a positive obligation on officers to ensure that the power is not used inappropriately in those circumstances. Further, amendment 11 requires that HMRC affirms in writing that officers have complied with those requirements.

The amendments make clear our commitment to protecting vulnerable members of society, and we will continue to work with experts to identify best vulnerable taxpayers and provide the most appropriate support.

I hope that clause 47, schedule 8 and amendments 11 and 12 stand part of the Bill.

[Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that helpful explanation. I place on record also my thanks to the ever helpful Chartered Institute of Taxation for its briefing, with which no doubt the Minister is familiar.

I understand the safeguards, which will, through the amendments, be increased: the debt must be more than £1,000; there will be a face-to-face visit from HMRC; there will be particular reference to and recording of a decision on whether HMRC thinks that the allegedly recalcitrant taxpayer is vulnerable; they must have sufficient money in their account; and there are 30 days in which to object before any money is transferred from the account to HMRC. During the 30-day period, the individual can apply for a court order to prevent HMRC from transferring money without itself seeking a court order, and HMRC must leave £5,000 in the account of the allegedly recalcitrant taxpayer.

There are still problems—for example, with those who hold joint accounts. The innocent or uninvestigated party to a joint account will have to make their objections known to HMRC. The Chartered Institute of Taxation says that

“we do question whether it is right for a totally innocent joint account holder to have to make such representations to stop HMRC accessing their money in the mistaken belief that it belongs to someone else.”

There are safeguards and reassurances, and my critique is not that HMRC would be acting as judge and jury, which the Minister, helpfully, was at pains to say would not be the case. That is not the substance of my critique; it is not why I will ask my hon. Friends to vote against the clause and the consequent schedule in a Division. I oppose clause 47 because in effect it makes one rule for the Government and one rule for everyone else.

I am aware that under what used to be called distraint, HMRC has since, I think, 1970 had powers to seize goods and chattels, not money from bank accounts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when mentioning the prospective clause in the Budget on 19 March 2014, said:

“I am increasing the budget of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to tackle non-compliance.”—[Official Report, 19 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 785.]

I am not entirely sure, despite the Minister’s reassurances this morning, that that has been the case. It certainly needs to be the case.

I did take the opportunity to look at the helpful consultation document on this prospective power; I congratulate the Government on having a long and thorough consultation on the power, and so they should have done because it is quite draconian and quite new. The introduction to the consultation document was written by the then Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire, who has deservedly had a promotion. On page 2 of the document, it gives this as one reason for wishing HMRC to have the power to take money out of people’s bank accounts without a court order:

“The current processes for recovering debts…can be costly”.

In paragraph 2.31 on page 9 of the document, it repeats that rationale, saying that

“a county court judgment…can be a slow and expensive process.”

I am aware of that. I and at least two of my hon. Friends knocked around the county courts for a number of years as solicitors. The process can indeed be slow and costly, but the speed and cost of county court processes in England and Wales are in part down to the Government. The Government decide on the resources available to the court system for the administration of civil justice; we are talking about civil matters, not criminal matters. The Government of the day provide or do not provide the money and make or do not make the rules, in liaison with the judges, who write what used to be called the white book and the green book before the Woolf proposals of 1999. The Government have a big hand not only in funding the courts, but in setting the framework within which the courts and their very able staff, judges and advocates operate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Matheson]

I certainly do not think we should not take enforcement action against people who can but do not pay their taxes. That is not the issue. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Wyre Forest said about enforcement for non-payers. I was slightly concerned that in the tone of what the Minister said, there was much more zeal for enforcement action at the lower end of the market than at the higher end. If that is a mistaken impression, I apologise, but there has to be more focus on large-scale corporate taxation, which may of course be covered in other parts of the Bill.

[Mr Gauke]

Let me say first that I am disappointed the Labour party will not be supporting the measure. I reiterate: these powers will be used at the end of an exhaustive process, whereby there will have been many opportunities for a debtor to have paid the debt and to have challenged the application of the debt to them. It is a measure targeted at individuals and businesses that are making an active decision not to pay or to delay paying the money they owe, despite having sufficient funds in their accounts and despite attempts by HMRC to contact them and encourage them to put their affairs in order. We must remember that we are talking about allowing £5,000 or so to remain in an account, so that people have the sums to make ends meet in the short term. I accept that court action is appropriate in some circumstances, but it imposes significant costs on both the debtor and HMRC.

[Rob Marris]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gauke]

Let me make this point first, which is not an immaterial one: whatever reforms the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West proposes for the courts system, there are risks of people gaming the system. For example, they might believe that HMRC will not want to go to court to recover a certain level of debt. It is widely acknowledged that there has been robust engagement with interested parties, and as a Government we have listened constructively to those interested parties to make reforms. In circumstances where substantial safeguards are put in place, this is a proportionate measure.

[Rob Marris]

I appreciate that there can be unrecovered costs, but if HMRC takes on a court case and wins, it is not the case, as the Minister said in his opening remarks, that the costs are borne by every taxpayer, unless the paying party—the losing taxpayer—does not in fact meet that judgment debt. The costs will be paid by the debtor.

[Mr Gauke]

I come back to the practical operation of this power. Let us remember that the existence of this power will encourage some debtors to pay tax at an earlier stage in the process, knowing that HMRC is able to pursue them more effectively. In Committee, and on the Floor of the House, we often debate the need to reduce the tax gap. The shadow Chancellor made that point on the Floor of the House yesterday. Of course, the tax gap consists of many things, including corporate tax avoidance, which I did not specifically address in my remarks because this clause does not specifically relate to corporate tax avoidance, but these powers could apply to any debt owed to HMRC, including debt involving corporate tax avoidance. If it is determined that a debt is owed, HMRC may pursue it in that way.

[Christian Matheson]

Will the Minister confirm that this clause will not simply apply to personal accounts but will also apply to corporate and business accounts of corporations that owe tax?

[Mr Gauke]

The clause will apply to both individual and business accounts, so it could be used in such circumstances. I will not detain the Committee for long on this subject but, on corporate tax avoidance, we have strengthened the capabilities of HMRC’s large business teams, introduced a diverted profits tax and led the way on the OECD’s work on base erosion and profit shifting. The Government have a proud record in that area.

However one looks at the tax gap, and there are different views on the size of the tax gap, corporate tax avoidance is a relatively small proportion. Whether one looks at the authoritative and well-respected HMRC numbers or at Richard Murphy’s numbers, no one claims that corporate tax avoidance is a large part of the tax gap. That is not to say that corporate tax avoidance is not important. It is important, but we also need measures that address all types of people who fail to pay the taxes that are due.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for confirming that the clause will apply to business, as well as to individuals. Will he also clarify whether leaving £5,000 in a debtor’s account will also apply to small businesses that owe tax? I am concerned that small businesses may need much more than £5,000 to pay the wages of their staff.

[Mr Gauke]

The £5,000 limit applies across the board, including for businesses. This measure is used only at the end of a process and, particularly for businesses, HMRC operates a time to pay process. I dare say that members of the Committee have experience of businesses in their constituencies that have had difficulty in paying tax when it is due and that have engaged with HMRC. Very large numbers of businesses have been able to defer such tax payments because of short-term cash-flow issues and have subsequently repaid them. HMRC does a lot of that, and it works successfully.

Joint accounts have been raised with us, and they have been raised in the Chartered Institute of Taxation briefing. If joint accounts were automatically excluded from the scope of this provision, it would provide an obvious opportunity for debtors to avoid paying what they owe. If we had gone down that route, it would be perfectly reasonable for the Opposition to say that it would be easy to walk around the provisions. However, we have made it clear that we want to strike a balance between recovering money from debtors who are refusing to pay and protecting the rights of other account holders. There are safeguards for joint account holders, including third parties who have a beneficial interest in money in a debtor’s accounts. Direct recovery will only be applied to a pro rata proportion of an account’s balance. All account holders will be notified that action has been taken, and all account holders will have equal rights to object or appeal. Joint account holders will also have clear appeal routes if they feel that their funds have been wrongly targeted.

[Rob Marris]

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation and apologise for not being clearer. I was not suggesting that joint accounts should be exempt from the procedure; I was using joint accounts as one more example of why the procedure should not pass into law at all.

[Mr Gauke]

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, although I appreciate his point. If we are being serious about reducing the tax gap, this is an important additional measure. According to Treasury figures, which have been verified by the Office for Budget Responsibility, it will bring in something in the region of £100 million a year. It will ensure fairness between those taxpayers—the vast majority—who pay the tax that is due on time and in full, and indeed those who pay shortly after being reminded; and the small minority who persistently fail to pay the tax that is due, which they can indeed pay, and fail to engage with HMRC. The power will ensure that taxpayers are more likely to engage with HMRC and more likely to pay the tax that is due, which will fund the public services that we need and help to reduce the deficit. I will be disappointed if the Opposition, who talk a great deal about wanting to reduce the number of people who fail to pay proper taxes, oppose the measure.

[Rob Marris]

The Minister suggests that £100 million may be recoverable under the procedure and earlier he estimated that the measure will cover 11,000 people, so that is an average of £9,000 per person. I would suggest that such an amount makes going to court well worth while. Of course Labour wants to close the tax gap and get in revenues. Will he address my point that it is a matter of principle that the Government should not—in my words—make a mess of the courts system and then give HMRC an end run around that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I again make the point that HMRC has a set of processes and procedures, and a number of safeguards, that are not comparable with anything that a private individual or company would have. It is important that we ensure that we have a properly functioning tax system and HMRC must collect substantial sums—I outlined the numbers—so that we have a properly functioning state. It is therefore right, given the safeguards that are in place, that HMRC has an additional tool at the end of a pretty exhaustive process through which there could be six to nine communications with a taxpayer, although I am not saying that that is a minimum in every case because sometimes the process moves more quickly for a repeat debtor. That taxpayer is not likely to be one of the most impoverished people, because the most impoverished, by and large, do not have more than £5,000 in their bank account. It is legitimate that HMRC has these powers. The Government are determined to bring down the tax gap and ensure that people pay the tax due, whether they be big businesses or private individuals. The power is welcome and I hope the Committee will support it.

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Mr Gauke]

The clause will ensure that when HMRC is party to a tax-related debt, the rates of interest payable by or to HMRC are those contained in tax legislation, whether the debt follows from a court order or not. The measure amends the rate of interest on tax-related debts owed by or to HMRC under a court order or judgment to an appropriate level given prevailing interest rates.

When HMRC is party to a tax-related debt, different interest rates currently apply depending on whether the debt follows from a court order. If the debt results from a court order, an interest rate of 8% applies. In England and Wales, that rate is set out in legislation under the Judgments Act 1838 and County Courts Act 1984, which is the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice. Scotland and Northern Ireland set their own rates of judicial interest, which are also 8%.

If the debt does not result from a court order, the relevant interest rates are set out in the Taxes Acts. Different interest rates apply if tax or other duties payable to HMRC are paid late, and if tax or other duties have been overpaid, resulting in repayment by HMRC. Those rates are linked to the Bank of England base rate. They are currently 0.5% if HMRC is paying interest and 3% if interest is being paid to HMRC.

The changes made by clause 48 will ensure that the rates of interest for all tax-related debts are contained in tax legislation, whether the debt follows from a court order or not. It will affect taxpayers in litigation cases where there is a tax-related judgment debt with interest due and HMRC is either the debtor or creditor. The clause will simplify the HMRC debtor and creditor interest rates. The Government will reduce the rate of interest that applies to tax-related debts payable by HMRC under a court order or judgment to a rate equal to the Bank of England base rate plus 2%, and apply the late payment interest rate of 3% as specified in the Taxes Acts to tax-related debts owed to HMRC under a court order or judgment. The changes will apply to new and pre-existing judgments and orders in respect of interest accruing on and after 8 July 2015. The new rates of judgment debt interest in tax-related cases will compensate the receiving party for any delay in receiving the money that a court has ruled is owed to them at an appropriate level considering prevailing interest rates.

The clause ensures that the rates of interest payable on tax-related debts to which HMRC is a party are all contained within tax legislation. It also reduces the rates of interest on tax-related judgment debts owed by or to HMRC to an appropriate level given prevailing interest rates.

[Rob Marris]

Having so narrowly lost the vote on clause 47, I am tempted to press this clause to a Division, but I can assure the Minister I will not. However, there are similarities between the measures. My objection to clause 47 and HMRC taking money out of people’s bank accounts without a court order was that it was one rule for HMRC and one rule for everybody else. In the clause immediately following—clause 48—the Government cannot wait to do that again, and I am worried about that trend. I understand that if one wishes for consistency, one cannot always achieve it because the situation depends on the corresponding factor with which another factor is compared. In this case, the Government are saying, “We don’t like comparing the interest payable on moneys owed to HMRC pursuant to a court order,” as per the Judgments Act 1838 or the County Courts Act 1984, which I have written endlessly in pleadings—as they used to be called—over the years. They are saying “We want to compare it with an internal rate that HMRC has for debts owed to HMRC,” which are adjudicated on, but not via the court system.

There is an inconsistency if you have what I would call, for shorthand, an internal, non-court HMRC rate and an external, court HMRC rate. The bigger issue for me, however—this is where I come down decidedly for the opposite comparison for consistency to the Government’s—is that there should be consistency for the individual when faced with the court system of England and Wales, and there should be consistency in the interest rate payable on a county court or High Court judgment, regardless of who the applicant, claimant or, to use the old term, plaintiff is. Even if the plaintiff is HMRC in a tax-related case and the claimant or plaintiff wins that case—HMRC wins—the interest payable upon that judgment debt should be the same as if the winning party who successfully claimed at court that they were owed money was a private individual or a company.

As I said, I appreciate that there is a certain dilemma for HMRC, but it has put up with that dilemma since about 1838, as far as I can tell. I therefore think that it should carry on putting up with that in the interests of having one court rule for everyone, rather than one that relies on the identity of the claimant.

[Mr Gauke]

I note the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. I am pleased that he is not seeking to divide the Committee on this particular clause, as he did on clause 47. I argue that the measure is appropriate and proportionate. I understand that the Ministry of Justice is reviewing why there is not one court rule regarding when the Judgments Act rate of interest is reduced. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman takes any comfort from that, but I am pleased to inform the Committee of the fact.

The clause is reasonable in respect of tax-related debts which, of course, flow both ways—there is money owed to HMRC and money owed by HMRC. There should be consistency, and provisions on the rates of interest payable to debts to which HMRC is party should be in tax legislation. Although the hon. Gentleman and I disagree about the operation of the process, I am pleased that we do not have a disagreement on the clause, which I hope will stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 49 and 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

We now come to our consideration of the new clauses. All but one of them have already been debated, so with those measures we will move immediately to a decision. Mr Mullin has indicated that he does not intend to seek a vote on any of his new clauses 1 to 3, so the first new clause that we will consider is new clause 4, which has not been debated before.

New Clause 4

Consultation on reforms to the system of tax reliefs for businesses

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall, within three months of the passing of this Act, initiate a public consultation on potential reforms of the system of tax reliefs for businesses which would encourage long term investment and growth in the UK; and the Chancellor shall lay a report of the consultation before both Houses of Parliament by the end of September 2016.

(2) The consultation under subsection (1) must address (though need not be limited to) the following issues:

(a) how reforms to the system of tax reliefs could benefit small businesses in particular;

(b) how such reforms could provide greater long-term certainty about business taxation;

(c) the impact of such reforms on Exchequer revenue; and

(d) the wider societal impacts of such reforms.”—(Rob Marris.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Rob Marris]

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

Hon. Members will be pleased to hear that I will not detain the Committee for long. I have to say that in recent years HMRC and the Treasury have done a pretty decent job of carrying out consultation. They have got a lot better regarding the number of issues on which they consult, and especially the timeframe allowed. Rushed consultations were carried out under the previous Labour Government and in the early years of the coalition Government, and they sometimes still happen. Sadly, all of us have probably come across such consultations in local government around the country. It is a question of not only a consultation’s terms of reference or whether something is put out for consultation at all—I do not agree with consulting on everything—but the timeframe. HMRC and the Treasury have got better at that, for which I thank the Minister.

For a number of years—this is not exclusive to the coalition Government and the new Government—there has been a lack of monitoring of tax reliefs, which are the substance of new clause 4. I understand that the National Audit Office has criticised the Government for not properly monitoring their tax reliefs. The NAO has found more than 1,300 tax reliefs, which seems an awful lot for a Government of any political colour when we want a simpler system. The NAO found that only 200 of those reliefs are properly monitored by HMRC, meaning that the vast majority—1,100—are not. We could have a long debate—we will not—about what proper monitoring means, but if I understand the NAO report properly, there are difficulties in a major area of our tax regime.

I would venture that Governments around the world have any number of tax reliefs. Other countries may have more or fewer, but we have an awful lot and they are not being properly monitored. They are integral to our tax regime in terms of not only revenue and foregone revenue, but the Government using taxation as a lever to encourage and discourage certain behaviours. We sometimes overlook that, although we debated it earlier in the context of the effect of vehicle excise duty on people’s behaviour when buying light passenger vehicles. Some reliefs are intended to encourage behaviour, such as tax relief on pension contributions, which is quite properly being lessened by this Bill, but an awful lot of relief still remains. We are talking about billions of pounds, so there should be proper monitoring.

It might be that the Minister, who is very assiduous, can reassure the Committee that there is an overarching, ongoing consultation, or even a new consultation, on our tax relief system and, as is proposed in new clause 4, on reforms, specifically in relation to tax reliefs for businesses. I referred to Governments using tax reliefs to encourage and discourage certain behaviours, and there is agreement across the House that tax reliefs have a part to play in fostering the business growth that we all want.

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that his party’s leadership is looking to eliminate what I recently heard the hon. Member for Leeds East refer to as £93 billion of “corporate welfare” to reduce the deficit and fund public services. Some of that constitutes tax reliefs or exemptions—however one wants to describe them—including £20 billion of capital allowances. Does the hon. Gentleman consider the £93 billion of “corporate welfare” to be a potential source of revenue for a future Labour Government?

[Rob Marris]

I thank the Minister for that question. The £93 billion figure has been much misunderstood.

The new clause is part of the probing that we want the Government to carry out on behalf of the country. My hon. Friends the shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition want to examine what tax reliefs exist—what we are spending the money on, in lay terms, although I appreciate that the process often involves leaving it in the taxpayer’s pocket. As the shadow Chancellor made abundantly clear to the House last night, he is quite rightly in the business of evidence-based policy—[Interruption.] Someone says that he is in the business of “changing his mind”. Yes, my hon. Friend is, as he made clear last night. He interprets the evidence, and evidence changes as more comes out. Like him and, I presume, other colleagues, I want evidence-based policy making.

Whether the figure is £93 billion, £193 billion or £3 billion, the fact is that the Government are foregoing billions of pounds of tax revenues. I think it would be agreed across the House that some of that will be a jolly good thing. There might be differences of opinion among hon. Members about whether a given tax relief is socially desirable, in the sense that its intention is to achieve a socially desirable outcome, and about the evidence of whether a socially desirable outcome is in fact being achieved through the tax measure. There therefore could be disagreement in two ways: first, about the outcome; and, secondly, about whether the tax relief is getting us anywhere nearer to that outcome, or near enough to it—about if we are getting bang for the buck, to use the vernacular.

New clause 4 would require a wider review of tax reliefs for businesses to encourage long-term investment. Were the review carried out and the evidence collected, it might be that my party would call for changes, and I do not rule out the possibility of increases in tax reliefs for businesses. I am not making a pledge on behalf of the Labour party, but it might be that we would think, on the basis of the evidence, that there should be greater relief for businesses regarding research and development—innovation.

On Tuesday, we discussed tax matters for small, growing, knowledge-based companies. We had that debate because the previous Labour Government set up a tax relief regime to encourage research and development. Again, I think there is generally agreement across the House—perhaps not among every right hon. and hon. Member—that encouraging research and development is a desirable goal for any Government. I think that there is also general agreement across the House—again, perhaps not from every Member—that the tax regime has a role to play in encouraging the research and development that almost all of us, if not all of us, want.

[Mr Gauke]

On a point of clarity, and to reassure businesses throughout the country—including, I suspect, in Wolverhampton—while the shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition talk about eliminating £93 billion of “corporate welfare”, to use their phrase, is the hon. Gentleman saying that there is no plan to remove capital allowances or R and D tax credits, which constitute sizeable elements of that £93 billion? When he says that the £93 billion “corporate welfare” estimate has been much misunderstood, does he mean by his own leadership?

[Rob Marris]

I said to the Committee earlier that I was not about to start freelancing on tax policy for the Labour party. That will not surprise the Minister, or other hon. Members. It might disappoint him, but it will not surprise him. He tempted me on two major areas of tax relief for business; I will repeat what I said earlier. We are in the business of trying to develop evidence-based policy, so if the review were, as we hope, to be accepted by the Government and to take place, we might say that business tax relief should be increased in certain areas. I do not rule out that possibility. We might say that it should be reduced in other spheres of activity. I do not know yet.

I cannot help the Minister any more than that, because that is the whole point—or perhaps not the whole point: the major point of having the review is to get the evidence so that all parties can review their policy. After the review, perhaps the Government would review their policy and increase or decrease tax relief for businesses in certain areas.

As to the £93 billion, it has, as I said, been much misunderstood. It may be a coincidence, or perhaps it is a borrowing—many politicians are prone to borrow—but until very recently the most successful federal election in Canada for my party’s sister party, the New Democratic party, of which I used to be a member, was in 1972 under the then leader Ed Broadbent, the honourable member for Oshawa. He was a great leader of the New Democratic party. The campaign slogan referred to “corporate welfare bums”, and it was about large corporations—often multinational—having unfair tax breaks. It was very successful.

There is a tradition in capitalist democracies of corporate welfare. [Interruption.] Yes, there is, and I think we should be honest about that. Sometimes we socialists would support that, to encourage certain activities. I gave the example of research and development; but, yes, there is corporate welfare. Some of it, I suspect—but do not know—is unjustified. I will not know unless we can gather the evidence, and the Labour party will endeavour to gather the evidence as best we can, but it would help if the Government would put resources into doing so by accepting new clause 4, as I hope they will.

[Mr Gauke]

I thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West for the thoughtful way in which he put his case, injecting, to some extent, scepticism into claims of £93 billion of corporate welfare that might be easily available to reduce the deficit and fund public services, as some of his colleagues have perhaps been inclined to suggest in recent weeks.

Having welcomed some of his remarks I will, I am afraid, disappoint the hon. Gentleman by urging my hon. Friends to oppose new clause 4. The Government are committed to supporting investment and growth through the tax system, which is why we provide businesses with a range of tax reliefs and allowances. The Treasury and HMRC keep all tax policies under review and routinely consult on changes as part of the policy-making process. However, a general consultation on the system of tax reliefs would not be appropriate, since each relief has been designed in a particular way to address a specific issue.

The new clause raises questions about the impact of tax reliefs on investment and growth. The Government recognise the importance of supporting growth and investment through the tax system. In fact, we have designed tax reliefs to do exactly that. For example, through the annual investment allowance, businesses can offset the first-year costs of plant and machinery against their corporation tax liabilities. That supports investment by reducing its cost to businesses. Small businesses in particular benefit from that; 85% of the total value of the annual investment allowance goes to small and medium-sized enterprises.

To support further investment, the Government are raising the permanent level of the AIA to £200,000—its highest permanent level ever. Similarly, R and D tax credits, which the hon. Gentleman referred to, are an incentive to invest in research and development. A recent HMRC study found that each £1 of tax forgone through tax credits stimulates between £1.53 and £2.35 of additional R and D investment, which fosters innovation and helps the economy to grow.

Looking forward, the Government remain committed to supporting investment and growth. We will publish a business tax road map by April 2016, setting out our plans for business taxes over this Parliament. That will provide businesses with the certainty they need to plan for long-term investment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rob Marris]

I am somewhat reassured by the Minister’s remarks about the framework document in 2010, for which I thank him; I hope that we will see another framework document soon. I am also somewhat reassured about the “road map”, as he calls it, that will be published next year, and the consultations that he referred to. For example, he referred to the annual investment allowance increase in the Budget this year. From memory, when I spoke in the House on the Budget on 8 July I praised that increase in the allowance.

However, the Minister went on to say that he was concerned that if he accepted the new clause it would call into question and create uncertainty about many tax reliefs that are working effectively. With due respect to him, to some extent that assumes what he is trying to prove, by saying that things are working effectively when Opposition Members are asking for an investigation to be carried out holistically—to use the everyday term that is used these days—into the business relief part of the tax regime. The risk is that the Government’s consultations, which I have previously spoken positively about, will become somewhat piecemeal in their approach.

We would like an overarching investigation, because tax reliefs—whether the 1,300 overall, or the smaller number within that 1,300 that apply to businesses—may produce what in chemical terms would be called the cocktail effect. In fact, some such effects have been addressed by provisions in the Bill. That is where a tax measure is put into place and then it is found that it contradicts an existing tax measure. Not surprisingly, those contradictions are often resolved in favour of taxpayers, which is understandable, but correspondingly that is at the expense of revenue for the Exchequer.

A piecemeal approach is not what we need. The new clause is part of our desire to have evidence-based decision making, a holistic approach and zero-based budgeting, to which we are committed. I will not press the new clause to a Division, but I urge the Government to avoid being piecemeal. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

[Mr Gauke]

On a point of order, Sir Roger, before we conclude I would like to take a moment to make one or two remarks and thank a number of people. I am pleased that the first Finance Bill of this Parliament has received excellent scrutiny from members of the Committee. Inevitably, more focus has been placed on certain clauses than on others, but debate has been insightful and wide-ranging throughout. I am pleased that the Committee has reached consensus over much of the content of the Bill, including measures that will support businesses and tackle avoidance and aggressive tax planning.

Most impressively, the Committee has displayed unparalleled efficiency, with debate on all clauses concluded in just six sittings. Having done every Finance Bill since 2006, Tuesday afternoon’s session was perhaps my favourite, on the basis that it lasted only 17 minutes.

I thank you, Sir Roger—through you, I also thank Mr Howarth—for your guidance and your wisdom in steering both new and experienced Committee members through what can be a complex process. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West is of course both new and experienced. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest for his brief unexpected spell as Chairman during the debate on corporation tax, and his guidance at that time was invaluable.

I thank all members of the Committee for their contributions and non-contributions. I thank Members on the Government side for their patience, forbearance and, above all, attendance. I also thank the Members from the SNP and from the Labour party where, for understandable reasons, there has been something of a changing of the guard over the course of the Bill. For me, it is surprising that Front Benchers change from decade to decade, but they perhaps change more frequently when a party is in opposition.

I put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) for the work that she undertook from the Labour Front Bench at the beginning of the process. I was delighted to see the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West in his place. I say delighted, but I was slightly apprehensive, knowing that he is an extremely assiduous Member. It is very difficult to get much past him, and I welcome him to the Front Benches, as I do the hon. Member for Leeds East.

Earlier this week, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West compared our encounter to the South by Southwest festival—SXSW—given that we both represent seats that are in the south-west of their particular areas. He is clearly more familiar with trendy festivals than I am. Though I admit that the Finance Bill Committee can occasionally resemble Glastonbury in a wet year—a confused crowd struggling through a vast expanse of mud while someone at the front is shouting loudly—I am pleased that on this occasion, proceedings have been far more harmonious. For that, we have to thank the usual channels: my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon, who has worked with quiet efficiency with both the hon. Member for Scunthorpe and now the hon. Member for St Helens North. I am particularly grateful for the assistance I have received from my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, who led on the banking measures.

Finally, I thank the representative bodies and interested parties that have submitted to the evidence to the Committee. I thank our Clerk, Mr Hamlyn, the Hansard Reporters and the doorkeepers, who have ensured the smooth running of the Committee, the HMRC and Treasury officials, and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, without whom none of this would be possible. I am sure all hon. Members will join me in looking forward to Report and other stages of the Finance Bill in due course.

[Rob Marris]

Further to that point of order, Sir Roger. I will briefly add my thanks to many. First, I thank my colleagues who were previously members of the Committee, most notably but not only my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South. I thank the staff both within and outside the House, most explicitly the Treasury staff, who were very astute in assisting the Minister to remember the details of certain matters.

I thank all members of the Committee on both the Government and Opposition sides for their assiduous attention to our proceedings. I thank the Economic Secretary, who was the first Minister I went up against, as it were. I also thank the Financial Secretary, who I went up against a lot more. As Members will know, he has done this a lot more than I have. This is my seventh Finance Bill Committee, but he is probably up to 11 or 12 now, because in years—such as this—there is more than one Finance Bill. I salute his tenacity.

In terms of the speed of proceedings, this is not like Glastonbury; it is more like the South by Southwest festival, which takes place in Texas, where mud is much less frequent and one just makes breezy progress in the sunshine, in a collective and collegial manner. Finally, I thank the two Chairs, Sir Roger and Mr Howarth. I will always remember the Committee, because if I have the honour to lead or contribute for the Opposition officially in future Committees, this will always be the first one in which I was able to do so. Thank you for your chairmanship.

Double Taxation Arrangement: UK and Jersey

David Gauke Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

An exchange of letters signed in London on 22 September 2015 and in St Helier on 1 October 2015 amends the 1952 Double Taxation Arrangement with Jersey. The texts of the letters have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and made available on the gov.uk website. The texts will be scheduled to a draft Order in Council and laid before the House of Commons in due course.

Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/writtenstatements

[HCWS236]

Finance Bill (Fourth sitting)

David Gauke Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

Question (this day) again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Howarth. Welcome to what may prove to be a briefer sitting than you were anticipating. I hope that that does not upset your plans too much.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West raised a concern that the clause might permit aggressive tax planning or tax avoidance by multinational companies, and that a consequence could be lost revenue to the Exchequer. Let me reassure him. We believe that the clause will have a negligible impact on the Exchequer, but it will simplify the UK tax system. To some extent, if the existing rules were designed to deal with tax avoidance, they were not going to be able to do that effectively anyway because companies could put in a European economic area or UK-linked company.

We do not think the clause opens up a particular vulnerability in any event, but the hon. Gentleman made an important point about ensuring that our tax system is fit for purpose in a world in which multinational companies have choices and can structure themselves in particular ways. That is why the UK was keen to encourage the OECD to look at the international tax system as part of the base erosion and profit shifting project. That project reported recently; it was debated by G20 Finance Ministers at Lima last week and recommendations have been taken on board. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made clear, the UK will implement the BEPS recommendations.

There is an important point, but I do not believe that it is relevant to the clause. The Government remain determined that the international tax system should ensure a closer alignment between economic activity and taxing rights. That is the key to the BEPS reforms, which is an agenda we are keen to push forward.

[Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)]

There is a difference between something that affects those currently trading in a particular way and the actions that a group of companies might take in the light of a changed tax regime. Is the Minister confident that a change of behaviour through company restructuring following the changes in the clause is unlikely because there will not be much of a loss of revenue from linked companies and so on, and there will not be a change in behaviour that will lead to such a loss in the future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

We do not believe that there will be a change of behaviour that will lead to a loss of revenue as a consequence of the clause. I hope that that provides reassurance to the hon. Gentleman and to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35

CFC charge: abolition of relief

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 36 stand part.

[Mr Gauke]

Clauses 35 and 36 make changes to prevent the offsetting of UK losses and other surplus expenses against tax that should be paid by UK companies in accordance with the reformed controlled foreign companies rules. That will improve the effectiveness of our CFC regime in countering aggressive tax planning by UK multinational groups while maintaining the competitiveness of the UK corporation tax regime.

The CFC rules are designed to protect the UK corporate tax base from the artificial diversion of UK profits to low-tax jurisdictions. The rules were extensively reformed in 2012 during the previous Parliament as part of the corporate tax road map, which provided the protection necessary for a more territorial corporate tax base while ensuring that the rules operate in a way that reflects modern global business practices.

A CFC charge arises on a UK company in relation to CFC profits that have been diverted from the UK. Under the CFC rules, UK losses and other surplus expenses could be set against profits taxable under the CFC rules, which can reduce or eliminate the amount of UK tax actually paid on those diverted profits. The Government believe that tax should be paid on profits diverted from the UK. These changes will ensure that that happens.

The changes made by clauses 35 and 36 will remove the ability of a UK company to reduce or eliminate its CFC charge by offsetting UK losses and surplus expenses against that CFC charge, which will improve the effectiveness of the CFC regime in deterring the diversion of profits from the UK by ensuring that those profits are taxed. The changes made by clauses 35 and 36 apply to corporate entities, not individuals. They will apply with effect from 8 July 2015 to UK-resident companies that hold an interest in a CFC on which a CFC charge will arise. The changes will mainly affect large UK multinational groups with overseas subsidiaries. The changes will raise an estimated £860 million in additional tax receipts over the next six years.

The reform of the CFC rules in 2012 was an important part of corporation tax reform. These clauses ensure that the CFC rules work as intended by preventing UK losses or other surplus expenses from reducing or eliminating the amount of UK tax paid on diverted UK profits. The changes are in line with our broader corporate tax policy objectives, which seek to balance competitiveness and fairness.

[Rob Marris]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I do not think I have had the pleasure since taking a five-year sabbatical.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rob Marris]

I will endeavour to conduct myself in a way that produces that result.

I wish I had thought of clauses 35 and 36 myself. They contain great anti-avoidance provisions, for which I again salute the Government. I understand that they seek to ensure that the CFC legislation operates as intended. There is one sting in the tail—I may have misunderstood—but clause 35 addresses loopholes that have been exploited since the introduction of provisions in the Finance Act 2012. That does not instil great confidence in the creation, drafting and passage of that legislation. The more so with clause 36, which—again, I may be mistaken—attempts to close a loophole or dissuade companies from a course of conduct with their tax affairs pursuant to rules that were introduced by the Finance Act 2015. If that be the case, I am concerned that the House is repeatedly battling against aggressive tax avoiders. If it be the case that we are amending legislation introduced about six months ago to close a loophole, we are not doing as well as we should be and might be on countering the actions of aggressive tax-avoiding companies, which is a goal shared on both sides of the House. Although the different ways one might do that may be the subject of debate, the goal that companies should pay their fair share of tax is a shared goal. Again, we can debate what is a fair share of tax, but loopholes appear to be popping up all over the place at very short notice, which is a concern.

[Mr Gauke]

I again thank the hon. Gentleman for supporting the content of these clauses. I have general and specific points to make in response to his comments. He is right that there is a consensus across the House that aggressive tax avoidance should be tackled. Although he was on sabbatical for the previous Parliament, he will be aware that measures designed to deal with that matter were brought forward in the previous Parliament. A lot of the work that needed to be done in the context of large multinationals is essentially of a multilateral, international nature, and we have pursued that agenda through the BEPS project, which I mentioned a moment ago, so there has been a determination on that front.

We brought in measures over the previous Parliament, as have previous Governments, to address what could be described as loopholes in domestic legislation. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has also been very effective in collecting more tax from large businesses. The position of tax administration at HMRC has ensured that those revenues are collected.

If I were to argue against the provisions for a moment, I could say that a UK company can set its losses against UK profits, so why can it not also set its losses against profits that have been diverted from the UK? We are not persuaded by that argument, hence the measures in front of us. The provisions are consistent with our wider policy of protecting our corporation tax base against the diversion of UK profits, which is consistent with our approach to the diverted profits tax, for example. It is right to take action, but it is also right to ensure that we get the balance right between fairness and competitiveness. As evidence has emerged of particular practices that companies pursue, it is right to make adjustments as and where necessary ensure that legislation reflects those twin objectives of fairness and competitiveness.

[Rob Marris]

Can the Minister indicate when the Government will push forward hard on what they have said that they will do on transparency of beneficial ownership of companies in tax havens and so on? Anecdotally, there is quite some evidence of tax avoidance, which the introduction of that transparency could lessen. The Opposition want it and the Government say they want it, but it appears to be slow in coming.

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman takes me into wider matters, but I am happy to respond even though it takes me a little way from clauses 35 and 36. The UK is leading the way by introducing a central register of beneficial ownership. That issue relates more to tax evasion as opposed to tax avoidance. We are encouraging other jurisdictions, including overseas territories and Crown dependencies, to move in the same direction as the UK.

On the subject of transparency and tax avoidance, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that one of the earlier recommendations from the BEPS project was on the introduction of county-by-country reporting information that goes to tax authorities. To ensure that we made progress on that front, we debated it before the conference recess. Such a measure would be more helpful and beneficial to tax authorities than a different arrangement. They could more easily assess a multinational’s tax affairs around the world and understand whether significant profits located in a low-tax jurisdiction might be indicative of a need for a closer look at the tax affairs of that multinational company.

Returning to the clauses before us, the hon. Gentleman referred to the interaction with the loss restriction rules that were introduced in a previous Finance Bill this year. The measure amends the rules restricting the use of carried forward losses introduced in the Finance Act 2015 to put it beyond doubt that those rules apply to arrangements involving CFCs. The measure is in addition to and, I would argue, complementary and consistent with the previous legislation. It puts it beyond doubt that that anti-avoidance measure applies to CFCs.

I hope those points are helpful to the Committee. We are determined to ensure that the UK is a competitive place in which to do business. The reforms of the CFC regime that we introduced in the last Parliament have helped the UK to attract additional business and more headquarters have been located in the UK. It is also right to ensure that those reforms do not go beyond what we intended and leave open opportunities for tax avoidance. The clauses are evidence of our determination to address that matter and I hope they will stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mel Stride.)