Corporate Tax Base
Jane Ellison Excerpts(7 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. Thank you for getting us all together for this special, festive debate on an important subject: the draft directives for a common corporate tax base and a common consolidated corporate tax base. The motion proposes that the directives do not comply with the principle of subsidiarity, and I will set out the Government’s position later in my remarks.
This debate takes place in the context of the decision made by the British people to leave the EU. The Government are clear that until the UK leaves the EU, it remains a full member and is subject to the same rights and responsibilities as other member states. That includes paying into the budget, attending working parties and voting on draft legislative proposals.
The scrutiny provided by the European Scrutiny Committee is clearly of importance. Recognising that importance, I apologise up front for issuing the explanatory memorandums after the deadline. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole generously said that the Government might have been expected to have a bit more time, given that the holiday period takes up some of the time before the eight-week deadline. I apologise that the EMs came out after the deadline, but we have worked hard to hold this debate before the Christmas recess and to give the Committee a valuable opportunity to discuss the proposals. As the Committee is aware from my hon. Friend’s opening remarks, the proposals would represent a significant shift in how corporation tax was calculated and paid.
The draft directives come in two parts. The common corporate tax base would be mandatory for large companies with a turnover exceeding €750 million, and would mean a number of changes to the way the tax base is calculated. That includes a super deduction for research and development expenditure, and an allowance for equity financing. The second part, which includes consolidation, uses the same bases as the Commission’s 2011 proposal to allocate profits around the EU: workforce, sales and fixed assets.
In general, the Government are receptive to the themes underpinning the proposals. The House has discussed countering international tax avoidance on many occasions, and the focus on that and tax simplicity, capital mobility and so on is welcome. The Government are receptive to multilateral action being taken to achieve those objectives, provided that that action is effective and proportionate. For example, our work at the OECD during its base erosion and profit sharing project has helped us to tackle international tax avoidance by multinationals, and that could not have been achieved by the UK acting unilaterally. More recently, as the Committee will remember, there has been the anti-tax-avoidance directive. It built on those principles and was agreed by the UK earlier this year. We just do not think that the proposed directives meet the high bar that proposals must reach before we can agree to something that limits the UK’s ability to shape its own tax policy; that is the critical point.
As the European Scrutiny Committee notes in its report, the Government do not agree that the directives will help to counter tax avoidance, which is one of the directives’ stated objectives. Tax avoidance is a global issue, so limiting tax reform to the way a firm’s tax is calculated within the European Union cannot solve the problem. Also, the tax avoidance measures in the draft proposals go no further than the ones the UK has already agreed at the OECD—measures that we are already implementing. We have serious concerns, for obvious reasons, about rules that rely on an exploitable formula for allocating profits and taxing rights to member states.
We do not believe that the UK should give up its sovereignty over how the tax base is calculated. Direct tax sovereignty gives us the ability to react quickly and decisively when change is needed, including to achieve domestic objectives or counter identified avoidance or abuse of tax rules.
Finally, on the legal base of the new proposals, article 115 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union provides for EU legislation that directly affects the single market. It is possible to make a case that that article is an acceptable legal base for these proposals, but the Government have broader reservations. In line with the European Scrutiny Committee, we do not believe that a common consolidated corporate tax base is necessary for the internal market to function effectively. Harmonising 28 bespoke tax regimes and effectively designing a single regime that can cope with different accounting standards and various international tax treaties is too ambitious, and risks detracting from more achievable goals that could actually help the functioning of the single market, such as dispute resolution.
Let me be clear: the UK will not give up member state sovereignty over our tax base without a sensible reason to do so, and we are not convinced that the proposed directives include such a reason. We are therefore not convinced that the proposal is consistent with subsidiarity. I hope that the Committee will support the motion, which the Government endorse.
The Chair
We have until 10 am for questions to the Minister. I remind Members that they should ask questions, not make statements. There will be a chance for debate following the questions.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Hanson. If I may, I will set out a series of questions, which the Minister can pick up if she wishes.
First, in the light of paragraph 1.3 of the European Scrutiny Committee’s report, which indicates that the Commission has formally withdrawn its 2011 proposal for the introduction by Council directive of a common consolidated corporate tax base, or CCCTB—it almost sounds like the acronym for a children’s programme—and the fact that seven other national Parliaments have given a reasoned opinion why the proposal fails to adhere to the subsidiarity principle, as the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole indicated, does the Minister acknowledge that the issue is in effect a dead duck, and that scrutiny and debate of it is therefore perhaps a little academic?
Secondly, does the Minister acknowledge, as noted in paragraph 1.3 of the report, that the question of the UK introducing these newly proposed directives is academic, given that they are provisionally lined up for implementation on 1 January 2019 and 1 January 2021 respectively—unless, of course, Brexit does not mean Brexit?
Thirdly, the European Scrutiny Committee’s report also highlighted that the Government had
“completely failed to provide either any substantive analysis or its view on whether the proposals are compatible with the principle of subsidiarity.”
The Minister referred to that, but the Committee specifically said that the Government had not provided any information. Why is that?
Fourthly, in paragraph 1.7 of its report, the European Scrutiny Committee expressed surprise that the Government had acquiesced to the ECOFIN conclusions of 6 December 2016 about an EU corporate tax system, given their apparent view—as set out by the Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke), in response to the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) on 29 March—that the CCTB would undermine our sovereignty and
“risk harming the competitiveness and growth prospects of the Single Market.”
Does the Minister agree with that conclusion of the European Scrutiny Committee?
Finally, given that the issue is academic for two reasons—namely that the Government will not sign up to the CCTB and we will be virtually out of the EU by the time any progress is made on the issue—what alternative do the Government have when it comes to tackling profit shifting and unintentional double taxation across Europe and beyond?
Jane Ellison
I should perhaps say in anticipation that if I cannot respond to any questions from colleagues, I will of course write to them. I hope that satisfies hon. Members.
I will deal with the points raised. There was a general question about subsidiarity. We do not believe that either the CCTB or CCCTB are necessary for the internal market to function effectively, so we do not accept the assumptions that appear to underpin the Commission’s proposal. At present, we are therefore not convinced that the proposal is consistent with subsidiarity.
The hon. Member for Bootle mentioned ECOFIN’s conclusions. They were high level in nature and do not commit the UK to anything. The Government have made our reservations about the proposals clear. As directives on direct tax, the files require the unanimous approval of member states before they can be agreed. We will continue to engage constructively. As I said, as can be seen from our co-operation on the OECD project and the substantial number of measures we have passed since 2015 alone, we are clearly very supportive of the intended direction of travel. However, we will not sign up to anything that unduly restricts our sovereignty over direct tax, as the current version of the file does.
The legal base was also mentioned, which I touched on. Article 115 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union provides for EU legislation that directly affects the single market. While we think that it might be possible to make the case that that article is an acceptable legal base, we have broader reservations about whether the proposals can achieve their objectives, as I have set out.
The shadow Minister asks what is envisaged as we go forward; that question quite reasonably arises whenever we debate EU matters. He mentioned the timing, which clearly relates to when we will leave the EU. UK companies that operate in the EU and meet the conditions of the CCCTB would need to understand and operate under its rules if it were to come into effect. The amount of profit allocable to UK activities will remain the same.
From the perspective of double taxation relief, our rules and treaties should continue to operate as they do now. In fact, we have double taxation treaties in place with all of our European partners—as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath knows; we debated this on Friday—so we are not dependent on EU laws alone on such matters. Those are already in place and will continue to operate as they do now, so we do not think that that is too much of a material concern. I think I have touched on all the key points. Subsidiarity was mentioned, but I think I have alluded to it sufficiently.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I have two questions for the Minister. First, I am not clear whether her primary objection is on principle, or because she dislikes the content of the proposed instrument. Will she engage in a thought experiment with me? Were member states to come together around a table and all agree to move together and change their corporate tax bases in the way that is proposed here, but not through an EU instrument, would she be happy to sign up to that? Does she object on principle, or does she dislike the content of the proposal? Secondly, what consideration has the Minister given to the impact on the Government’s Brexit negotiations of adopting this stance on this instrument?
Jane Ellison
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions; they were good, as I would expect. As I said, the UK will not give up member state sovereignty over our tax base without very good reason, and we are not convinced that there are such reasons in the directive. On some measures, such as the ATAD measure to which I referred, we have come together and been able to agree something.
Having direct control over our tax base enables us to respond to events in our own jurisdiction. We have debated tax a lot over recent years, and it has become apparent to all of us in this House that the challenges we face are global. Leaving aside the timeline issue, it is quite hard to envisage a situation in which there would be a sufficiently compelling reason—the hon. Lady set out a hypothetical situation—to give up direct control over our tax base, given the global challenge we face with some of these tax issues.
We are working very well domestically, with almost 30 measures passed since 2015—some of them are yet to come into effect, and others are already working—and have co-operated through the OECD. For those reasons, we do not see this proposal as compelling enough to cause us to give up something as important as direct control over our tax base.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the second time, Mr Hanson. I sympathise with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole and the Minister, but I have two questions.
On the question of sovereignty over taxation, does the Minister agree that the UK being a signatory to the OECD BEPS arrangements she referred to entails an implicit loss of sovereignty, because we are making an international agreement? Does the sovereignty argument not apply equally there?
My second question is on European taxation. The Minister made some powerful points about the global nature of taxation and said that acting at a European level alone may not be fully effective. Does she think that European Union member states adopting these proposals would prevent some multinationals—I am thinking particularly of companies such as Amazon and Google—from effectively running their European sales via Dublin and Luxembourg in order to benefit from very low rates of taxation and avoid paying tax in member states where sales and staff are located? I fully accept the reasons the Minister gave, but what assurance can she give the Committee that we will successfully clamp down on those tax-planning—I will not say evasion—measures if we cannot do so via this instrument? What other channels could we use to avoid that happening?
Jane Ellison
They are indeed good questions. The latter point is something to which we have all given a great deal of thought. I might write to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South with further reflections, if that is all right. He is right to say that these issues exercise us all, but they are not purely European issues. Indeed, some of the challenges with famous companies’ taxation arrangements actually have their roots in the US tax code, more than EU taxation, but I might write to him with a more thought-out response.
On my hon. Friend’s first question, it is true that we have agreed files in Europe that impact on direct tax. As he said, the UK has been actively participating in multilateral action through G8, G20 and the OECD to reform international tax standards and prevent tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning by multinationals, as part of the Government’s objective to align the taxation of profits with economic activity, which relates to his second point.
We have supported EU-level action where appropriate but are keen to ensure that it fits with the way multinational enterprises are taxed globally. We fully supported the European Commission’s work to implement the recommendations from the BEPS project through the anti-tax-avoidance directive, but the crucial point is that those actions are targeted at particular issues, and the degree of co-ordination required between countries’ tax regimes is limited to the extent necessary to address them. We feel that agreeing a common consolidated tax base at EU level is a more fundamental change in the way companies are treated. For the reasons I laid out in my opening statement, it goes too far for us to agree that it is the right way to proceed.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I call the Minister to move the motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 13730/16 and Addenda 1 to 3, a Proposal for a Council Directive on a Common Corporate Tax Base; further takes note of European Union Document No. 13731/16 and Addenda 1 to 3, a Proposal for a Council Directive on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base; considers that the proposals do not comply with the principle of subsidiarity for the reasons set out in the Twenty-third Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 71- xxi); regrets that because of the inflexibility of the deadline for providing a Reasoned Opinion over the Christmas period it has not proved possible in the time available for the House to serve a Reasoned Opinion in accordance with Article 6 of Protocol No. 2 annexed to the EU Treaties on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality; and instructs the Clerk of tile House to forward this motion and the Reasoned Opinion recommended by the European Scrutiny Committee to the European Commission by way of political dialogue.—(Jane Ellison.)
Jane Ellison
I thank colleagues for their contributions, which included a typically thoughtful speech from the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. I will not detain the Committee too long in drawing some closing thoughts together. I thank the members of the European Scrutiny Committee for recommending this debate. The Government will continue to respond to these important debates, allowing parliamentary scrutiny of EU proposals. I take the point that the hon. Member for Bootle made, but I would not go as far as to say that this is all a pointless exercise.
Peter Dowd
I understand where the Minister is coming from, but I want to be clear: I was not trying to say that this is a pointless exercise—it is absolutely crucial that we have scrutiny of these matters. The point I was trying to make was that much of the scrutiny focused on what happened in the past, not what will happen in the future. We are having debates and discussions about things that are not really going to take us forward. That is the point I was trying to make—not that it was pointless, but that the scrutiny is the wrong scrutiny.
Jane Ellison
A fair point, and I welcome the clarification, but I would still slightly disagree. The debates we have been having about the challenges of international taxation and multinationals, which were laid out eloquently by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, are ongoing. They have taken place in the context of the G20 and the OECD, and will continue to take place in the EU. We will continue to have those debates after our exit from the EU because, as people have said, we are leaving the EU, not Europe, and we will continue to have very important relationships. It is important that we engage with this direction of travel, because this is hardly going to be an overnight process.
There was a slight implication in the contribution from the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland that compared to the OECD, the EU was a model of speedy progress; that is where I would sound my only note of scepticism. It is clear that we will be engaging on these matters for a long time to come, in a range of international forums, so the debates that we have are useful. They have been echoed in other countries. Other people have expressed issues and concerns, as we have as a country, and there have been other reasoned opinions offered.
Helen Goodman
Will the Minister tell us which other countries have been resistant? She said there were seven.
Jane Ellison
No, I said several. I think I am right in saying that Ireland has offered a reasoned opinion, and there has been debate in other countries as well. On the issue of direct tax and sovereignty in particular, the UK is not taking a stand-alone point of view.
I want to address the points made by the hon. Lady about wider co-operation and competitive corporation tax. My main reason for pushing back against the points she made is that although it is true that UK corporation tax was 28% in 2010 and will be 17% by the end of this Parliament—we have already legislated for that—the backdrop to that is our active engagement and, indeed, leadership in international forums to address some of the issues that we are all concerned about to do with multinational tax avoidance and aggressive planning.
Our mantra is that taxes should be competitive and fair, but paid. The Chancellor has been clear about the path that we have set for this Parliament to the figure of 17%, and that it is right in the circumstances. We have no plans to go further at this time, but as I mentioned, we have brought forward a number of measures—about 30 since 2015 alone.
On one hand, it is true that we have set the most competitive corporation tax in the G20, but on the other, we are extremely proactive in international forums in leading on measures to clamp down on international tax avoidance. We shall continue to do that post-Brexit, within the OECD and with European partner countries. That is a balancing point to put against the slight implication in what the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said that we are in a race to the bottom. We want to be competitive, but also to make it clear that taxes must be paid. The measures that we have passed underline how seriously we take that.
While we remain in the EU, the Government will continue to engage with EU tax files, championing the approach to business tax that encourages investment in jobs and growth, places proportionate administrative requirements on business, and ensures that businesses large and small pay their fair share of tax. As I said, that will happen through the tackling of avoidance. We will also scrutinise proposals to ensure that they are proportionate and effective; proportionality, and questions as to effectiveness, are obviously germane. We will not compromise member state sovereignty when it comes to direct tax.
I hope that what I have said provides an update for members of the European Scrutiny Committee on the Government’s stance on these matters, and that I have sufficiently reassured the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland that we will continue to be engaged. I welcome the interest in these important issues. I will review the Hansard report of the debate, and if there are any matters that I did not deal with in sufficient detail, I shall write to hon. Members. It was a good debate. We will continue to debate and engage with some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland beyond our membership of the EU, because we are, and want to continue to be, a leader in international forums in ensuring that businesses can operate in a fair and competitive environment, that the taxes that are due are paid, and that—as we have already sought to do, and are continuing to do—we use reasonable ways of clamping down on aggressive international tax avoidance and evasion.
Question put and agreed to.
Double Taxation Treaties (Developing Countries) Bill
Jane Ellison ExcerptsFriday 16th December 2016
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Double Taxation Treaties (Developing Countries) Bill 2016-17 View all Double Taxation Treaties (Developing Countries) Bill 2016-17 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)
I am grateful to colleagues on both sides of the House for giving me an opportunity to respond to this debate, because both this Bill and this subject are important. I want to respond in the constructive way in which the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) advanced his argument.
Let me make it clear from the start that I very much share the aims of the hon. Gentleman’s Bill. I share his belief in the importance of the UK’s efforts to tackle poverty in developing countries—we have achieved a great deal of cross-party consensus on that in recent years—and I think we would all very much agree with the thrust of his argument that it is absolutely vital to help countries to build capacity and to move beyond the need for aid.
Jane Ellison
I have only just started, so if the hon. Gentleman does not mind I will get a little further into my speech before I give way.
I reassure the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath that tax treaties enable countries to achieve that objective by helping to encourage the stable environment that can pave the way for sustainable economic growth and facilitate revenue collection, which is another important point that he drew out in his remarks. Although we are in full agreement about the important principles of the Bill, the lack of feasibility in its practical requirements means that the Government are unable to support it. I will come on to outline those requirements, but I first want to say a few words about our commitment to aid in general.
Patrick Grady
That was the question that I wanted to ask. It would be very helpful for the House if the hon. Lady put it on the record that the Government remain committed to the 0.7% aid target, because there has been speculation in the press, including reported comments from the Chancellor, that their commitment might be wavering.
Jane Ellison
It was only this week that the Prime Minister responded directly on that subject, so the hon. Gentleman does not need my assurance because he has had it from much higher up the governmental food chain.
As the hon. Gentleman intervened earlier on the subject of Malawi, I want to get this point on the record. I have done a lot digging into this issue. It is true that we are negotiating an updated treaty with Malawi, which we hope to conclude soon, but the Malawian Government have stated that there is no evidence of any UK companies using the UK-Malawi treaty to deprive them of their revenues. An official statement from the Malawian Government said that
“both the Malawi Government and the British Government, as well as the nationals of the two countries, have evidently acted in good faith to ensure that neither party is exploited on the basis of the current agreement.”
I wanted to give the hon. Gentleman and the House that assurance on the Malawi treaty.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) has some laudable aims, but that he is pushing at an open door because the Government have already taken substantial action and agreed to implement two of the base erosion and profit sharing outputs? They are therefore travelling in the direction he is asking for.
Jane Ellison
My hon. Friend is right. The OECD’s BEPS project is really important in addressing some of the issues the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath talked about. The UK has played a leading role in that project and will continue to do so. A large number of countries have come on board with those principles and we will continue to move forward on them.
It is worth restating that the UK became the first G7 country to meet the UN target of spending 0.7% of gross national income on international development. The way in which we tackle the challenges in developing countries is very much in the spirit of what has been discussed in this debate. We understand the idea of helping people to develop capacity and independence so that they are not dependent on aid. At the heart of what DFID and the Government are doing is the idea of strengthening people so that countries can move forward and develop.
We help people to strengthen their economies and reduce their reliance on aid in a range of ways. Last year—I am particularly proud of this because it involves HMRC working closely with DFID—we committed to doubling the funding for tax projects in developing countries through the Addis tax initiative. HMRC has set up a specialist tax capacity-building unit, which deploys staff to developing countries to provide technical tax expertise. It is working closely with DFID on that.
Bilateral tax treaties can play a part. Treaties are important in encouraging private sector activity in a partner country. We know how powerful a force that can be in driving up employment, providing quality goods and services, and raising crucial tax revenues, which finance public services in those countries. We have about 130 treaties with countries across the globe, including several with developing countries, to support and sustain cross-border trade and investment by tackling double taxation and clamping down on cross-border avoidance and evasion.
The treaties are reached through negotiation by experienced officials from HMRC and are highly technical documents. Let me provide assurance on the specific points the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath made about who is involved and the process that goes into those documents. They follow consultation exercises that help to establish appropriate priorities. That process includes the consideration of representations made by UK businesses, NGOs, other Departments including DFID and the UK’s missions based in developing countries. The approach to these treaties is very collaborative and open so that we reach the right priorities that work for both parties. Decisions on the negotiation or renegotiation of a tax treaty are taken on the basis of a range of factors, including the results of HMRC’s periodic review of the tax treaty network and the role of treaties in promoting development. The Government already strive to take wider issues, including development, into account and align our tax treaties with our wider development policies.
I know there are some concerns about the treaties, and some have been alluded to today. Let me be very clear that the UK never ties our wider assistance or investment to such treaties. We cannot impose tax treaties on other states, including developing countries, and we never try to do so. Every tax treaty we negotiate is necessarily a reflection of the interests and priorities of both states as equal partners. That of course will mean some trade-offs. Sometimes developing countries face a trade-off between reducing their tax rates and rights to encourage investment and maintaining those rates and rights and so risking losing investment. That is their judgment to make. Before engaging in a treaty negotiation any country would think about what its priorities are.
Mark Durkan
I have noted all that the Minister has said, but she must recognise that there is a concern that some of these treaties work more as double evasion treaties than as double taxation treaties. Beyond the treaties, in the last Parliament, against the grain of what the Government say they are about in the BEPS process, the controlled foreign companies rules were changed unilaterally and at the expense of developing countries’ exchequers.
Jane Ellison
There are two things I would say. First, our work on double taxation treaties cannot be seen in isolation from the wider work we have led through the OECD on the BEPS project and a lot of the legislation we have passed. Since just 2015, there have been more than 30 different measures that will come into effect on avoidance and evasion.
My second point, to reiterate what I was saying before I took the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, is that these are mutually agreed treaties. If a country is not comfortable with anything being proposed—not that the UK would propose anything close to what he suggested—the treaty is mutually agreed and it is right that we respect the balance developing countries wish to strike in negotiations as much as we would respect any country’s position. Our network of treaties with developing countries demonstrates that. We have no power to force a developing country to sign a treaty that is against its interests, and would never try to do so. If the UK and a potential treaty partner cannot come to an agreement that satisfies us both, the treaty simply will not go ahead.
I turn to some of the specific issues that the Bill would entail for any Government negotiating such treaties, because while we respect and agree with the thrust of the Bill’s intent, we do not think we could, from a technical point of view, carry out some of the analysis that the Bill suggests.
Let us take, for example, the idea of assessing the impact. Given the long timescales, the complex and shifting interactions with domestic law and the lack of a reliable comparator, we believe it is simply not possible to produce meaningful estimates of the revenue effects of a tax treaty in the sort of timeframe that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath is suggesting. These are long-term projects with partner countries. Successive Governments have never attempted to produce assessments of the effect on the UK, let alone for a partner country. To attempt to do the latter—to assess the impact for the partner country—would very likely not be welcomed by that country, as it would essentially represent the UK’s uninvited judgment of its tax policies. I entirely endorse his comments about mutual respect. However well intentioned, the idea of our passing judgment on another country’s tax policy runs counter to the key principle of mutual respect.
Roger Mullin
I am afraid that I do not accept the Minister’s point about evaluation for the following reasons. She says we have very good treaties, which are well respected and work well. How do we know that they work well if there is no evaluation of them? No one was suggesting that any evaluation would be one-sided. It is perfectly possible to have bilateral or multilateral evaluations.
Jane Ellison
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I still cannot agree with him. He asks how we can show benefits. I repeat that countries enter into these agreements willingly. We have over 130 of them, and there are more in the process of renegotiation, particularly those that are outdated. Countries would not be seeking to renegotiate or enter into that bilateral discussion if they did not feel there was mutual benefit in their doing so.
I have recently signed several such treaties—we have recently exchanged treaties with Colombia and Lesotho—and had the opportunity to talk to countries about why they do it, and it is clear they believe it is to our mutual advantage. Over time, these bilateral relationships must be to our mutual advantage. It is also worth noting that countries can rescind treaties. If countries did not think it to their advantage, they could rescind the treaties. We have not locked countries into these arrangements; they are entered into by mutual agreement, and countries can exit from them.
The Bill also asks us to assess the benefits of foreign direct investment, but again that would be very difficult, if not impossible, on the basis that FDI depends on such a wide range of factors. Investors will consider all sorts of things, including: existing and planned infrastructure; changes to the country’s legal system; political stability—often critical in the developing world; the education level of the workforce; and access to markets. The idea that we could assess in isolation the direct contribution of a tax treaty is impracticable. It would be part of a mix that moves a developing country from poverty to greater wealth; during that journey, all those things, and more, begin to fall into place to produce an environment in which wealth can be created to the benefit of the country because people want to invest there. To analyse one of those things in isolation, however, would be an extremely difficult proposition.
Mark Durkan
On the Minister’s point about mutuality and the nature of any treaty discussions, would she agree that when bilateral trade deals are negotiated post-Brexit they should be accompanied by new tax treaties, negotiated at the same time, in the spirit of mutuality she has talked about?
Jane Ellison
Brexit is a bit of a red herring in this regard. These agreements are bilateral, and the vast majority are outside the EU, although we have them with EU member countries too. I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman with further details, but his point is not directly relevant in the way he suggests.
Jane Ellison
No, I will not give way again. To be fair to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, the promoter of the Bill, I want to deal with a couple of his other points.
Parliamentary scrutiny was mentioned. We have a system whereby tax treaties are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and debate before they can enter into force. That means scrutiny through a Delegated Legislation Committee. There is a gap of several months between signature and debate, which gives hon. Members ample time to acquaint themselves with the contents of a treaty and to inform robust debate. There is also both the power and the precedent for referring treaties to the Floor of the House. That has not been done since 1984, but I would be delighted to discuss any of these on the Floor of the House if Members were moved to bring them forward.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for championing this issue and for the constructive approach he has taken. It has given us the chance to put on the record what I believe is an admirable track record in this country.
I will mention one more thing that might be of interest to the House. The Department for International Development is supporting the OECD’s new “tax inspectors without borders” initiative, which has raised more than $260 million of additional revenue in developing countries to be spent on public services. Again, this is a record we can be proud of across parties.
While we fully support the principles of the Bill, many of its provisions are already in place, and where they are not that is due either to the technical difficulties involved or to the unintended and undesirable consequences that such measures would involve.
The debate has served to highlight a number of things, particularly the role that tax treaties can play in providing certainty and stability for increased investment in developing countries; the importance of our tax treaties being tailored to meet the individual tax policies of our partner countries; and the considerable impact that the success of these treaties can have on sustainable economic development.
Although we do not support the Bill, I would like to thank the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath for securing the space to consider these issues—
Equality: Autumn Statement
Jane Ellison Excerpts(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)
We have certainly had a wide-ranging debate today, if perhaps a little curtailed, touching on many subjects of fundamental importance to our society and indeed to this Government. I would like to thank Members of all parties for their contributions.
In truth, I think we all want to see an economy that works for everyone in our society, whether it be women, men, people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds —all groups. It is right to scrutinise our success in delivering on that. Historically, women and black and minority ethnic groups have been disproportionately represented in lower-income groups. We all acknowledge that, but we have not heard much from the Opposition about the broad action necessary to address that long-term historical trend. It is important to address it in the long term, which my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) touched on.
We have just heard from the Opposition that “aspiration” is an empty word. Actually, at the heart of Conservative Members’ contributions has been the idea that it is aspiration that will address this problem in the long term, and that can be seen in some of the actions we have taken. We have sought to raise aspirations to ensure that the next generation does better than the current one, particularly in some of the lower-income groups.
What, then, have we been doing? Fundamental to everything—I realise that this is something that the Opposition will never agree with us on and will never engage with—is a stronger economy. That underpins doing the best for everyone in our society so that they can enjoy a greater level of prosperity and higher living standards. [Interruption.] The Opposition Front-Bench team can chunter all they want, but their failure to engage with the fundamental issue of having a credible plan for our economy, for bringing down debt over time and for putting our public finances on a sustainable basis perhaps explains why only five Labour Back Benchers were in the Chamber at the beginning of this Opposition day debate. It perhaps explains why large parts of the Labour party have lost faith in their own Front Benchers. It is a consequence of their failure to engage with the fundamental truths of our economy. That issue underpins everything that we have come here to discuss today, but we have heard nothing from the Opposition about some of the key issues.
In stark contrast, we have heard from Government Members about what we are doing to maintain the focus on making this country somewhere where our businesses can grow, where people can succeed and where we can provide more jobs and more opportunities for all working people. There is a stark contrast with the Labour record, which saw female unemployment rise by a quarter, whereas we have a record employment rate. We have seen 1.2 million women find work since 2010, including 400,000 women from black and minority ethnic groups.
The House should also note—Conservative Members noted it with pleasure—that the gender pay gap has fallen to a new record low. Yes, there is further to go, but all we got from the Opposition was sarcasm, instead of saying, “Yes, we have made progress and we want to do better.” But progress we have made, and it is all about laying the foundation for rising wealth for all working people. It means having a sensible fiscal plan to get our finances under control, and it means backing British business to deliver strong growth in our economy, without which we cannot create jobs for anyone.
I was slightly mystified by the dismissive tone taken by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) on investment and infrastructure. I am glad that she engaged with the autumn statement announcements on infrastructure, but she dismissed the investment in road building, for example, as being about creating jobs in construction. That infrastructure money, whether for road building or digital infrastructure, is directly intended to help people start businesses and grow them quicker. Record numbers of women have started businesses in this country over the past six years, and it is evident that investment in improving our digital infrastructure is key to some of those companies, because women have been extraordinarily entrepreneurial when it comes to starting new online businesses.
Jess Phillips
Only 17% of jobs in innovation and technology are held by women, but we can look at that again.
Words have repeatedly, and wrongly, been put in my mouth throughout this debate. I never once said that I did not want infrastructure spending on roads; I said that I also want infrastructure spending on care. That money should be spent equally on women’s jobs and men’s jobs. All I am asking is that we record the data so that we can see if that works.
Jane Ellison
I am responding directly to that point. Infrastructure investment is about enabling the creation of more jobs and enabling more businesses to grow. We obviously agree on that point, but it is nonsense to say that men benefit disproportionately. We know that more women have started businesses and that more women are in employment, so the things we are doing to enable people to grow businesses and create jobs are directly benefiting all kinds of workers. That is fundamentally what we are about.
We heard from my hon. Friends—sadly, there was nothing from the Opposition—about the number of women on boards, the number of women in employment and the number of businesses being started by women. It is impossible to have this kind of debate if the Opposition will not acknowledge any of that or the progress made. They will not acknowledge, for example, that when the personal allowance rises to £11,500 next year, 1.3 million people will be taken out of income tax, 59% of whom are women. My colleagues talked about the investments we have made for working families through tax-free childcare, the reduction of the universal credit taper, funding for more affordable homes and investment in quality public services, meaning that more children are in good or outstanding schools. However, mention of that came there none from Opposition Members. It is as if none of those things have happened.
We carefully consider the implications of all of our measures both for protected equality groups, in line with the Equality Act 2010, and for households at different points on the income distribution. I refer hon. Members once again to the comprehensive distributional analysis that we published alongside the autumn statement. It showed—again, we did not hear about this—that only the wealthiest households would experience modest losses as a result of the measures in the autumn statement. That is why the top 1% of income taxpayers in our society today pay a greater share of income tax than in any year under the previous Labour Government, but we did not hear about that either.
We want to see women and men of all races and ages and from all parts of our country grow increasingly prosperous, and key to that is investing in a strong economy that produces jobs and opportunities for working people. That is what we have been working to deliver since 2010. That is why we have more women in work and more women-led businesses than ever before. That is why we have increased support for families and individuals in their day-to-day lives, whether through measures to increase the national living wage, which are ridiculously dismissed by Opposition Members, or by cutting income tax for millions of people.
Crucially, women are a much more important part of this country’s economy than the Opposition give us credit for. We are so much more than they would have it, from listening to their speeches today. The Government are here to improve the lot of all the working people in this country and, in particular, to support the ever increasing contribution that women make to our economy—and long may it be so. This Government remain committed to ensuring that that continues into the future.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Savings (Government Contributions) Bill
Jane Ellison ExcerptsMonday 12th December 2016
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Savings (Government Contributions) Act 2017 View all Savings (Government Contributions) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 December 2016 - (12 Dec 2016)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)
This has been a wide-ranging debate, albeit with a relatively small number of speakers. Many of the arguments today were given a good airing during our Bill Committee discussions. I will try to address the key points raised by hon. Members, and will also set out why we think the Government amendments are necessary.
First, however, I want to touch on a point of policy that is of some relevance to the debate: a change to charges in the first year. We are making a small change to charges on early withdrawals from the lifetime ISA in its first year of operation, for the benefit of consumers. Although these rules will be set out in regulations, so do not affect the substance of the Bill before the House today, as a courtesy I thought some hon. Members would be interested, given the points raised in oral evidence to the Bill Committee.
The 25% Government charge on unauthorised withdrawals from the lifetime ISA recoups the Government bonus and applies a small additional charge. This is fair as it reflects the long-term nature of the product and ensures that individuals save into it for the intended purposes, protecting Government funds and taxpayers’ money. However, in 2017-18 only, the bonus will not be paid monthly, as it will be from April 2018 on, but will be paid as an annual bonus at year-end. This could create a difficult case where people face a 25% Government charge up to 12 months before they receive the bonus. We have listened to representations on this point, and so, to improve the product for consumers, I can confirm that there will be no Government charges in 2017-18.
If people want to withdraw from their lifetime ISA in 2017-18, they must close their account, and there will be no Government charge to do so. No bonuses will be paid on such closed accounts.
An individual who has closed their account will be able to open another lifetime ISA in 2017-18 and contribute up to £4,000 into it, if they wish to. From April 2018 the Government bonus will be paid monthly. This means that the 25% Government charge on withdrawals other than for a first-time house purchase, in the event of terminal illness or when the individual is over 60 will apply as per the overarching policy intention.
Government amendment 3 is about data sharing, and I wrote on this issue to the hon. Members for Bootle (Peter Dowd) and for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and copied in the rest of the Bill Committee. We have heard that the lifetime ISA will provide an eligible first-time buyer with a new choice in saving for their first home, in addition to the existing help to buy ISA scheme. Both schemes provide that generous Government bonus of 25% that can be put towards a first home.
As we set out when we first announced the lifetime ISA, we intend that individuals will be able to save into both a Help to Buy ISA and a lifetime ISA, but they will only be able to use the bonus from one of the schemes when they buy their first home. Amendment 3 introduces a new paragraph to schedule 1 to allow HMRC and the administrator of the Help to Buy ISA to share information about bonus payments and charge-free withdrawals so that those rules can be policed. It also provides appropriate safeguards and sanctions in relation to the use of account holders’ information, including a criminal offence for unlawful disclosure of that information, in line with HMRC’s established duty of taxpayer confidentiality. The amendment is straightforward and will ensure that the scheme rules on Government bonuses can be effectively administered. I hope that the House will accept it.
Government amendments 4 and 5 concern residency conditions for Help to Save. That is a targeted scheme, as we have heard, that will support lower-income savers by providing a generous Government bonus on their savings. It is only right that that Government bonus should be available for savings made while an account holder is in the UK or has an appropriate connection with the UK, such as Crown servants serving overseas. The Bill already provides that, as well as meeting conditions in relation to working tax credit or universal credit, an individual must be in the UK to open an account. However, it is currently silent on the rules that apply where an account holder leaves the UK during the four-year lifetime of an account.
The amendments address that situation by allowing regulations to provide that the monthly payment limit for Help to Save can be set at nil in certain cases. We intend to use that power to provide that an individual cannot make payments to an account, and cannot thereby earn additional Government bonus, when they are not in the UK or do not have the appropriate connection to the UK. That will be supported by a requirement to notify the account provider if an account holder’s circumstances change and they will be absent from the UK. That approach broadly mirrors the arrangements currently in place for ISA accounts. The amendments also provide for a penalty where there is a failure to notify the account provider of such a change. However, that penalty will not apply where there is a reasonable excuse for the failure, and any person who receives a penalty will have the right to appeal. The House will have the opportunity to consider regulations dealing with eligibility for an account before the launch of the scheme.
These amendments allow an effective targeting of the generous Help to Save bonus, so that it can be earned only on savings made by individuals in the UK, or with an appropriate connection. On that basis, I hope that the House will accept them.
I will now respond to the non-Government amendments and new clauses. Again, we debated most of these issues at length in Committee. I will try not to recap all the arguments and to summarise the main ones.
New clause 3 and new clause 7 both concern advice for people opening either type of account. We have heard concerns that people may not get all the advice they need. I have been clear that the regulation of providers is the role of the independent Financial Conduct Authority, which regulates ISA providers and will likewise set the framework for the Lifetime ISA. It is consulting on its approach at the moment. On 16 November, it set out its suggested approach.
The Government of course want to ensure that people have the information that they need to make important financial decisions. We will provide clear information on gov.uk as well as work with the Money Advice Service and its successor to ensure that they make appropriate and impartial information available. The risk of mandating that people receive independent advice is that it makes investing in these products prohibitively expensive for many people. In Committee, we talked about the cost associated with mandating financial advice of that nature. Therefore, although I understand the sentiment behind those new clauses, I urge hon. Members not to press them and instead look at what the FCA has recommended in its initial suggestions to us.
Jane Ellison
I will, although the hon. Gentleman spoke for 20 minutes on this subject. I will take a brief intervention.
Ian Blackford
Speaking for 20 minutes when consumers are exposed to risk is not unreasonable. Can the Minister tell me which workers who have access to auto-enrolment will be better off under a LISA than they would under a pension?
Jane Ellison
I accept entirely, and it is evident from the hon. Gentleman’s speech, that he objects in principle to the lifetime ISA, but the matter before the House is whether we legislate for it, and the new clause I am addressing at the moment concerns financial advice. I have given examples of where the Government will be steering people towards advice. We are as keen as anyone that people have access to advice, but I urge him to look at the FCA consultation and what it has said, because it is the FCA’s job to steer us in that regard.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
I listened with interest to the points made by Labour Members about credit unions. I am a member of the Bedford credit union. Will the Minister look specifically at this issue? I think the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) was saying that the Bill was an opportunity to expand the role of credit unions—they could be given almost a preferred provider status. When the Minister considers expanding the provider model beyond NS&I to include alternative providers, will she look specifically at expanding it solely to credit unions, rather than more broadly?
Jane Ellison
I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that it would be pre-emptive of me to make such a commitment at this stage. However, we have been clear that we think that credit unions have a big role to play. The primary legislation does not preclude them from being part of a multiple provider model in future. Indeed, my officials have been in constructive discussions with the credit union movement throughout the passage of the Bill. We are working with the credit union sector to ensure that the final design of Help to Save meets the needs of the target audience. I know that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is looking forward to meeting the hon. Member for Harrow West and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) to discuss the issue further with the Association of British Credit Unions. Therefore, this is not about excluding the credit union movement. We are in regular, constructive discussion with credit unions. We just feel at this stage that the amendment would not allow us to offer that simple nationwide model on the introduction of Help to Save.
Stella Creasy
I thank the Minister for what she is saying. Our concern is that savings are a critical part of credit unions’ ability to deliver the services that they provide. Her argument does not preclude the amendment that Co-op MPs have tabled. The conversations that she is talking about could then happen. There has been no suggestion that there would be any legislative bar. She is making the case for accepting the amendment in saying that it is exactly what she wants to do in future.
Jane Ellison
I am just saying that nothing in the Bill precludes that from happening now, so the amendment is unnecessary. We are in constructive discussions with the credit unions. They are not precluded from being part of a multiple provider model in future. I have laid out that, throughout the consultation, we identified that that was not a suitable model for the starting point. However, I honestly think that we are essentially coming at this from the same point of view. I hope that, in the light of what I have said, hon. Members will not press the amendment. As I say, we will continue to have those constructive discussions.
Amendment 7 seeks to pay the bonus every six months, rather than at the two and four-year mark of the Help to Save product. We believe that paying the bonus at two years and at account maturity strikes the right balance between giving people enough time to build up their savings and develop a savings habit and allowing them to access the bonus within an appropriate timescale. That is supported by evidence from similar savings schemes. Some Members will be aware that the savings gateway pilots showed that the optimal period for the saving habit to be embedded is two years.
I emphasise that people will still have full access to their savings with Help to Save, so even if they are able to save for only six months, they will still be entitled to receive a bonus at the two-year point or at maturity. I hope that that reassures hon. Members that we have looked carefully at the issue. I accept that it is, to an extent, a judgment call, but evidence from the savings gateway pilots, as well as from other peer-reviewed research, shows that the optimal time for the saving habit to be embedded is about 19 to 24 months. We think that we have struck the right balance, so I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Amendments 8 to 11 centre on the contribution limits. Not many Members spoke specifically about the issue and we explored it well in Committee. It is about being able to contribute a two-monthly average of £50. Our consultation specifically addressed the question of whether individuals should be able to pay in more than the £50 limit in certain circumstances. Respondents were very clear that that would add complexity to the scheme, both for savers and for account providers. It is worth noting that the Office for Budget Responsibility-certified forecast suggests that people will deposit £27.50 into their accounts each month on average. The £50 monthly limit is adequate, so I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
Amendment 12 centres on eligibility for under-25s. The issue was explored in Committee and it has been touched on briefly today by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber. Our intention is to passport people into eligibility for Help to Save from working tax credit and universal credit. That is a well-established way of targeting people on lower incomes, and we think that it is the most simple and effective method for determining eligibility. Importantly, it removes the need for people either to complete a further means test to prove that they are eligible for an account or to contact the Government, both of which deter people from opening accounts. It also avoids additional costs associated with developing a new and complex eligibility checking system.
The hon. Gentleman also touched on amendment 13, which seeks to exempt bonuses from bankruptcy proceedings. Our approach is consistent with what we have done elsewhere. In the benefits system, for example, deductions are sometimes made to claims to repay debts. We think that, in reality, any accrued bonus represents an asset to the account holder and should be treated as such during any insolvency proceedings. Again, I urge Members not press the amendment.
The hon. Member for Harrow West began by speaking to new clause 1, which focuses on save-as-you-earn and the payroll reduction, which is also the subject of amendment 14. Both proposed amendments seek to introduce rules to allow people to deduct automatically amounts from their salary into a Help to Save account. In fact, amendment 14 goes further by proposing the introduction of auto-enrolment for Help to Save, allowing employers or benefit-paying bodies to divert money from employees’ pay into a Help to Save account, unless they opt out.
As I said in Committee, we want the decision to save into a Help to Save account to be an active choice made by eligible individuals at a time that is right for them. For many, that will mean saving flexibly, putting aside what they can afford each month, rather than committing to having a fixed amount deducted each month from their salary. There is nothing in the Bill to stop an employer offering payroll deduction for Help to Save to their employees, but we do not intend to make it a statutory requirement for employers to offer payroll deduction for Help to Save. Automatic enrolment into workplace pensions must remain the priority for employers.
New clauses 2, 4, 5 and 6 seek to place a duty on the Government to review or publish analysis on certain aspects of the policies. In all cases we have already conducted an impact assessment, published alongside the Bill. At the time of the autumn statement, we published a cumulative distribution analysis of all the policies implemented during the 2015-20 Parliament, including of the lifetime ISA and Help to Save. We believe that it is important to look at the cumulative impact of tax and spending decisions, rather than the impact of individual measures in isolation. The distributional analysis that the Government have published since 2010 has always taken that cumulative, rather than measure-by-measure, approach.
As with all Government policies, we will, of course, keep the lifetime ISA under review to ensure that it is meeting its objectives. Indeed, we already regularly publish a wide range of detail about the take-up of Government-supported savings accounts such as ISAs. We intend to take a similar approach to the lifetime ISA, so we have already done a lot in that regard.
We discussed the interaction with the housing market in Committee, as the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) has said. In essence, any impact that the lifetime ISA has on the housing market is likely to be very difficult to detect among other factors. As was said in Committee, the accusations that this product benefits only the wealthy do not bear scrutiny, given that the Help to Buy ISA has been used to buy homes worth on average £167,250, which is well under the property price cap. The accusations are not fair.
The interaction with automatic enrolment dominated the contribution of the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber. We covered the issue in detail in Committee, and I once again stress the Government’s absolute commitment to automatic enrolment. It is wrong to say that we are seeking to derail it. The lifetime ISA—the Treasury is clear on this—is designed to be a complement to automatic enrolment and workplace pensions, not a replacement. Our costings do not assume that people will opt out of their workplace pension in order to pay into a lifetime ISA. Encouragingly, the figures show that the opt-out rate is very low so far. Taking all those things together, we do not think that the proposed new clauses are necessary, so I urge hon. Members not to press them.
Amendments 15 to 22 would effectively cancel the lifetime ISA from the Bill. It is evident from my comments so far that I have no intention of accepting the amendments. It is clear that we have a disagreement in principle. The hon. Gentleman’s accusations against the measure bordered on hyperbole. He said that he is prepared to look at any reasonable proposal that helps people to save, but we know from the consultations on the complex subject of saving for the future that this is a product that will help many people save. It is a direct response to the comments made in response to a public consultation about the complexity of savings options.
Jane Ellison
No. We have had a good debate, both in Committee and here, and I am going to press on. I have to date taken slightly less time than the hon. Gentleman—
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister is clearly not giving way. It is apparent to everybody else in the Chamber and I am sure that it is now apparent to the hon. Gentleman.
Jane Ellison
Amendments 15 to 22 seek to cancel half the Bill—I am not going to accept them. I refer the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber to the FCA’s consultation; I do not think that it would recognise his comments, and neither do I.
Amendment 1 would change the normal maturity period for Help to Save accounts from 48 to 24 months. In practice, people would be able to save into a Help to Save account for only two years rather than four. We designed the scheme so that people can save into a Help to Save account and get a Government bonus after two years, and then continue to save and receive a further bonus when the account matures after four years. We have done that because we want the target group to be able to save as regularly as other people and they may take longer to save towards that vital rainy day fund. It also provides an incentive for people to continue saving beyond two years, which fits with our objective to encourage people to develop a long-term saving habit. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Finally, amendment 6 would delay commencement until April 2019, when automatic enrolment into workplace pensions will be fully rolled out. We have been very clear that we do not expect lifetime ISAs to drive opt-outs from pension saving. There is, therefore, no reason to delay. In fact, such a delay would disadvantage those who wish to open a lifetime ISA and who have been preparing for a 2017 launch. The hon. Gentleman completely disregarded the fact that self-employed people do not have the option of access to a workplace pension scheme. That came out in evidence to the Bill Committee. There was not a word about the self-employed.
Jane Ellison
No, I will not.
The proposal would also delay Help to Save for a year, disadvantaging the savers on low incomes who will benefit from the scheme. Like many hon. Members, I am passionate about the Help to Save scheme and want to see it go ahead as planned. I intend to work with all who have been mentioned—the credit unions, many financial inclusion charities, and the Churches—to ensure that we exceed the take-up target for Help to Save. I will be delighted if we vastly exceed the target, and that is my intention.
Jane Ellison
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken the time to scrutinise the Bill during its passage through the House for the good, constructive debates, which have been very helpful. We want to make it easier for everyone to build up savings, to meet their ambitions and to feel secure in their personal finances, and we have already set to work to make that the case. We put an end, for example, to 17 million people having to pay tax on the interest they received on their savings and we announced the biggest ever increase in the ISA allowance, to £20,000 from April next year. This Bill, legislating as it does for the lifetime ISA and the Help to Save account, carries on that hugely important work.
As we have heard, the lifetime ISA provides a new option for young people looking to save for the long term. It is a positive move for savers that complements pensions and is yet another way in which we are supporting people who are doing the right thing and putting money aside.
Help to Save has received cross-party support in the House. We know why this is so important. Research from the Centre for Social Justice estimates that 3 million low-income households have no savings at all, so we can be in no doubt that moving forward with this account is a hugely important step.
The Savings (Government Contributions) Bill is important, and its passage through the House has been met with thoughtful and constructive challenge. We have debated a number of important principles during our deliberations, but the Bill is fundamentally about people who are trying to save for the future so I have no hesitation—indeed, I take great pleasure—in commending it to the House.
Draft Bank Levy (Double Taxation Relief) (SIngle Resolution Fund Levy) Regulations 2016
Jane Ellison Excerpts(7 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Bank Levy (Double Taxation Relief) (Single Resolution Fund Levy) Regulations 2016.
The regulations are made under powers available in schedule 19 to the Finance Act 2011 to provide double taxation relief in respect of contributions to the UK bank levy. In particular, the regulations allow double taxation relief when there is a charge under both the UK levy and a new eurozone levy called the single resolution fund.
Since 1 January 2015, all EU member states have been bound by the bank recovery and resolution directive, which requires that member states have a resolution financing mechanism and raise a certain amount of funding on an ex-ante basis from banks authorised in their territory. In the eurozone, banks pay a contribution to the single resolution fund; the UK is satisfying its obligations under the bank recovery and resolution directive by raising contributions through our existing bank levy. In some circumstances, payments made to the single resolution fund overlap with the UK bank levy, giving rise to instances of double taxation.
For other bank levies, such as those of France, Germany and the Netherlands, we have introduced provisions that allow for double taxation relief, but currently no mechanism is in place to give relief for payments made into the single resolution fund. In line with the Government’s general policy of avoiding double taxation, it was announced at summer Budget 2015 that relief would be provided against the UK bank levy for payments made to the single resolution fund from 1 January 2015.
I shall explain how the double taxation arises. The UK bank levy is levied on a group basis, whereas the single resolution fund levy is levied on an entity basis, which means that there could be double taxation if there is either an EU subsidiary of a UK-resident entity or a UK permanent establishment of an EU entity. As both bank levies are charged on balance-sheet liability, the regulations will give relief if there is a charge under both the bank levy and the single resolution fund levy in respect of liabilities on the same balance sheet. The regulations set out clear rules for calculating the amount of double tax relief due in the different circumstances in which it could arise. The rules ensure that the regulations provide a clear, consistent and fair outcome for all affected parties.
The Government are continuing their policy of avoiding the double imposition of taxation. Not to do so would risk unfairly burdening certain banks and damaging UK financial sector competitiveness.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that we will get the first taxing right on UK assets? For a UK permanent establishment of an overseas bank, we should not be crediting overseas tax against our tax so that we end up with no levy on UK assets that we are effectively guaranteeing. Will we credit overseas tax only if that territory is, for example, first in line to be paid any claims if there was a default on the assets?
Jane Ellison
That is a typically erudite question from my hon. Friend, to which I shall attempt to respond during my remarks following the comments of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman.
I was saying that were the Government not to proceed with this measure, that would risk unfairly burdening certain banks and damaging UK financial sector competitiveness. The regulations address such a risk by supporting UK business and creating a level playing field, so I hope they are approved. I am happy to respond to further questions.
Jane Ellison
This was a thoughtful debate and I thank colleagues for that. I shall address some of the general issues that came up, starting with the question of the balance between ensuring that banks are taxed enough and make a substantial contribution to the economy, and competitiveness.
The Government have been clear that banks should make a fair contribution, to reflect the risk that they pose to the economy. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bootle, revisited some of the reasons for that, which are very well known. Since 2010 we have introduced a number of measures to ensure that that happens: the bank levy, a tax on banks’ balance sheets introduced in 2011, which has raised £12 billion; an 8% corporation tax surcharge introduced in January and forecast to raise £7.1 billion in the next five years; restrictions on the amount of profit that can be offset by historic—that is pre-April 2015—banking losses resulting from the financial crisis and misconduct scandals, which are expected to raise an additional £5.5 billion by 2021; and restrictions on the amount of tax relief available for compensation payments associated with misconduct and mis-selling. Those were forecast to increase banks’ tax payments by about £1 billion across the period 2015 to 2020, but we expect that actually they will raise more.
At the same time as we ask banks to contribute to reflect the risk that they pose to the economy and to make a fair contribution we are always focused—even more so in the light of the decision to leave the EU—on making sure that all sectors of the UK economy retain their competitiveness. We feel that the banking sector does that: the regime is sustainable and fair and constitutes a competitive long-term plan for taxing the sector. By 2021 banking firms will pay 25% tax on profit—that is still the lowest among G7 nations—alongside a 0.1% levy on UK balance sheet liabilities.
Of course, banks consider a number of factors in deciding where to locate. The UK is the world’s leading financial centre. Colleagues may be interested to know that last year alone we exported £63.7 billion in financial services, insurance and pensions. Of course, we enjoy other advantages here, such as strong regulations, strong and independent regulators, and a very skilled workforce. We are trying for balance, and double taxation is at the heart of the issue of balance. We believe that people should be taxed fairly, but not taxed twice for the same thing.
I want, in general terms, to assure the Committee that the UK intends to retain its world-leading position on international taxation matters. The Prime Minister reiterated that at a recent G20. We were at the forefront of the OECD’s base erosion and profit shifting project, looking more generally at the issue of large multinational corporations, and, since 2015, 30 measures have been brought in or are coming in to deal with avoidance and evasion. As a country, we have stepped up on this issue and taken an international leadership position. We do not intend to relent on that.
A point was made about HMRC, and this comes up a lot. It is true that HMRC is going through a significant transformation—for example, some of the customer service aspects of what it does are being centralised from well over 100 different offices around the country to 13 regional centres. However, the upskilling and the investment in compliance and enforcement have been significant. For example, another £800 million was put into this at summer Budget 2015. I am meeting the senior HMRC director this afternoon to talk about it; we have regular meetings, and there is a laser-like focus on the issue. It is worth noting that HMRC has done a really good job in bearing down on this. The UK has one of the smallest and certainly one of the most transparent tax gaps in the world, and that is in no small measure owing to the work that we do on that at the same time as maintaining a position of international competitiveness.
I hope that what I have said gives the Committee a general assurance that we are trying to strike a balance. Basically, our mantra is that taxes should be competitive and fair, but paid. If people stick to that mantra, we cannot go too far wrong.
Let me deal with one or two specific questions. It is worth stating for the record that the measure that we are debating is not about implementing EU legislation. This relief is not required by the EU. The bank levy is a UK tax, and the Government announced in 2015 the decision to provide double tax relief, because it delivers on our policy against the double imposition of taxation in general and in respect of the bank levy in particular. This is a UK decision. It was not forced on us; it is a response to the European measure. Allowing relief for instances of double taxation risks will ensure that certain banks are not unfairly burdened and will avoid creating competitive distortions in the market. I hope that that explanation clarifies the situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley asked for confirmation that the UK would retain primary taxing rights over UK assets. The short answer to his question is yes. Double taxation relief is being given only in the case of non-UK entities and their liabilities. I hope that that gives him some reassurance.
The shadow Minister mentioned forum shopping. I have made some general comments to show that we remain focused on ensuring that we do not go in that direction, but as further reassurance let me say that I hope that any tax relief under this measure is strictly limited to charges that are paid on the same balance sheet. If overseas charges apply to a smaller proportion of the balance sheet or a charge at a lower rate, any relief will be correspondingly reduced. This is just a proportionate response to the levies that are being imposed through the European scheme.
In closing, I want to take up the point made by the hon. Member for East Lothian. Of course, over the next few years we will keep this matter under review. Clearly, as we exit the EU some aspects will change. We will keep that under careful review and consider the implications. I come back to the first principle that we have applied across a whole range of relationships around double taxation. That will always be our guiding way through on these matters, but clearly there will be implications as we leave the EU, and we will deal with those in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Finance Bill 2017 (Draft Clauses)
Jane Ellison Excerpts(7 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)
The Government have consulted on a number of tax policies following announcements made at Budget 2016 and previously.
Today, the Government are publishing draft clauses for Finance Bill 2017, along with associated responses to consultations. This fulfils our objective to consult, where possible, on draft clauses for the Finance Bill at least three months in advance of the introduction of the Bill.
The Government will publish draft legislation for the following measures in January 2017:
Making Tax Digital
Social Investment Tax Relief
Clarification of tax treatment for partnerships
The remaining draft legislation for tax deductibility of corporate interest expense and loss relief reform will also be published in January 2017.
Further detail on the clauses published today can be found in the overview of legislation in draft, which includes corresponding tax information and impact notes. All publications will be available on the gov.uk website.
[HCWS320]
Oral Answers to Questions
Jane Ellison Excerpts(7 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)
The independent National Audit Office is carrying out an inquiry into the Concentrix contract and it plans to publish its report in early 2017. That is in addition to Select Committee and Public Accounts Committee scrutiny, which has been extensive to date and will no doubt be extensive in the future.
Melanie Onn
I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), who is not in her place, whose hard work got this issue on to the agenda and forced HMRC to act. In July, the independent Social Security Advisory Committee said that the Concentrix contract was a
“major departure for HMRC, as decisions about a claimant’s past eligibility to a benefit are being made by a commercial organisation”,
and that
“this same organisation is then performing mandatory reconsiderations when a claimant challenges the initial decision.”
What are the Government going to do to prevent this situation from happening again?
Jane Ellison
The chief executive of HMRC addressed that particular issue in one of his evidence sessions to a Select Committee. I hope the House will be pleased to hear that HMRC has taken back and completed all 181,000 cases from Concentrix and has now cleared most of the mandatory reconsiderations. [Interruption.] There are of course issues to consider. That is why the National Audit Office is carrying out its inquiry, which is already under way, and the Government will of course respond to its report in due course.
Robert Flello
The Concentrix scandal left huge numbers of people in hardship, and some of them are still paying off the debts to loan sharks that they took out to see them through. Ministers must have seen the complaints letters, and they must have seen what was in the media. Were they asleep at their desks? Were they just caught napping? Concentrix, HMRC and the Minister at the time need to be held responsible for this, and we need a proper inquiry.
Jane Ellison
I would make the point to the hon. Gentleman that a proper inquiry is exactly what the National Audit Office will be undertaking, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) and her Committee will have that report in front of them in due course. This matter will be properly looked at in some detail. Over the course of the contract, considerable savings were made for the taxpayer in relation to fraud and error, but it is true that things went badly wrong towards the end of the contract, which is why swift action was taken.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
While recognising the points made by the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) on the Concentrix contract, which will be covered in the Select Committee’s report, I would like to congratulate Treasury Ministers on responding very fast when these issues really came to a climax in August and on being extremely prompt in looking after constituents who contacted their MPs about this matter.
Jane Ellison
I thank my hon. Friend for those words. Having looked carefully at the profile of complaints from Members over the period of the contract, it is clear that there was sharp increase in their number right at the end of the contract, when it became apparent that a number of Members were contacting us on behalf of their constituents. As I have said, it was the sharp decline in service that led to the actions that we took. It is also worth noting that all the 181,000 cases that were taken back have now been resolved and that, where appropriate, compensation has been paid. Most importantly, when claims have needed to be renewed and reinstated, this has been done.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Given the issues in my constituency that I have raised, I am pleased that the Concentrix contract has now been brought to an end. Does the Minister agree that an inquiry by the National Audit Office, which works for and answers to this House, will be far more effective in getting lessons learned than a long-winded public inquiry that could become a lawyer-fest?
Jane Ellison
My hon. Friend is exactly right to say that the National Audit Office inquiry is the way to go. This is an area in which it is deeply experienced and the work is already under way. The report will be produced in the new year. In order to draw conclusions and to find these reports helpful, that speed of inquiry is important. We will have the report early in the new year, and the House will have further chances to scrutinise it at that time.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)
Ultimately, the Government want to collect the right tax at the right time, not charge penalties. As it happens, we are currently reviewing ideas for how we charge penalties. A discussion document was published last year, and we recently consulted on a new approach to sanctions for late submissions of returns and late payment of taxes. We are currently considering all the comments received and if my hon. Friend wants to contribute to that process, I will be happy to look at any detailed points.
Gordon Henderson
I am more than happy to contribute. A small building company in my constituency has paid large VAT bills on time since 1972. However, on one occasion, because of a mistake by a member of staff, the company’s VAT return was one day late and the company was hit with a totally unfair £12,000 penalty charge. During the review, will Ministers consider changing the penalty charge system so that they are levied only on businesses that repeatedly fail to pay their VAT on time? “Three strikes and you’re fined” might be a good system.
Jane Ellison
I note what my hon. Friend says with interest. It is worth clarifying that the VAT default surcharge system already contains safeguards to help businesses avoid penalties and that no business incurs a surcharge the first time it makes a late payment. My hon. Friend may want to write to me about that individual case because I cannot address it here in the House. The current system of surcharges is structured in a way that allows the smallest businesses up to four late payments without incurring a surcharge, so I suggest that he writes to me with the details, which I will pass on to HMRC.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The new “Making tax digital” arrangements, which will require businesses to submit quarterly returns, increase the likelihood of sanctions being imposed following late returns or non-submission. How does that fit in with the Government’s promises to make it easier to start a business, to cut red tape and to make businesses more competitive?
Jane Ellison
I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s description of “Making tax digital”—an important reform that we will consider carefully. We said in the autumn statement that we will respond in the new year, but it is not right to say that there will be four returns; information will be digitally uploaded to the system more regularly. It is also the case that one of the driving forces behind “Making tax digital” is to help small businesses to get things right first time, because there is an awful lot of error that often costs businesses money that they would otherwise be owed.
Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I must press the Financial Secretary on that point. I appreciate that the “Making tax digital” programme does have advantages, but many small businesses are worried about quarterly reporting. Will she consider making it voluntary rather than mandatory?
Jane Ellison
I reiterate to my right hon. Friend that it is envisaged that people will upload information quarterly, but that is not the same as four tax returns a year, something which got some currency at the time. Several significant concessions regarding the number of small businesses that were exempt from the system were announced over the summer, but I am listening carefully to the points being made both by colleagues in the House and by some of the important stakeholders with whom we have been engaging. That is why we said that we will respond in the new year. We do not want to rush our response; we want to consider all the points carefully.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)
My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that we inherited a complex system in that regard. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has enhanced its online services. There will be an online service, for example, for people making new claims for tax credits starting in April 2017. The use of real time information through pay-as-you-earn has really helped to pick up potential errors in claimants’ income, and it is making a difference.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
Jane Ellison
The right hon. Lady and I have recently spoken about this issue, and as she knows, there has been some work done to look at the broader issue. It is complicated, but I undertake to look at it again and respond to her. Of course, some of the broader aspects of the gig economy will be covered during the Taylor review.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
According to the Library, infrastructure spending per head is 2.5 times greater in London and the south-east than in the regions. Does the Chancellor agree that now is the time for a fairer distribution of investment spending across the UK?
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
As other Members have mentioned, there is growing alarm about the impact of making tax digital on small business people, of whom I am one. Will the Chancellor confirm that, in time, quarterly tax returns will also apply to Members of Parliament?
Jane Ellison
As my hon. Friend mentioned, we touched on this earlier. Making tax digital is an important reform. I have mentioned already that some important concessions were made during the summer, by taking many very small businesses out of making tax digital, but it has much to offer small businesses. I am looking carefully at all the responses that have been made, and as he knows, I have listened carefully to the points that he has made on a number of occasions.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Double Taxation Conventions (Colombia and Lesotho)
Jane Ellison Excerpts(7 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)
Double Taxation conventions with the Republic of Colombia and the Kingdom of Lesotho were signed on 2 November and 3 November 2016 respectively.
The text of each convention has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and made available on HM Revenue and Customs’ pages of the gov.uk website. The text of each will be scheduled to a draft Order in Council and laid before the House of Commons in due course.
[HCWS282]
Autumn Statement: Measures with Immediate Effect
Jane Ellison Excerpts(7 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)
As part of autumn statement 2016, the Government have announced that the legislation for the following measures will have immediate effect.
Petroleum revenue tax: cutting administration costs for the oil industry
The Government are introducing legislation to change the returns process for petroleum revenue tax (PRT) in order to reduce administrative burdens for the oil and gas sector. This will allow participators to opt fields out of the PRT regime completely. Operational changes will also simplify the reporting requirements for PRT. The changes will be effective from 23 November 2016 using HM Revenue and Customs’ collection and management powers. This will ensure participators can take advantage of the changes as soon as possible.
First year allowances for charge point infrastructure
The Government are introducing legislation to incentivise investment in ultra-low emissions vehicles (ULEVs). The 100% first-year allowance will allow businesses to deduct charge-point investments from their pre-tax profits in the year of purchase. The relief is designed to encourage the use of electric vehicles by increasing charge-point availability. The changes will take effect from 23 November 2016 to avoid delays to planned investments.
Employee shareholder status
The Government are introducing legislation to remove the capital gains tax exemption and income tax reliefs associated with shares awarded under employee share- holder status. This is in response to evidence suggesting that the status is primarily being used for tax planning. The legislation will have effect in relation to employee share-holder agreements entered into on or after 1 December 2016 in order to prevent forestalling, while allowing outstanding agreements to be finalised. Due to the requirement that seven days must pass between an employee receiving independent advice on an offer and becoming an employee shareholder, this will allow any individual who has received advice before 23 November 2016 the opportunity to finalise the outstanding arrangement. The effective date is to be 2 December where advice is received on 23 November prior to 1.30 pm. Existing employee shareholder agreements will not be affected.
Further details on the measures listed above are contained in the draft legislation, explanatory notes and tax information and impact notes published on the gov.uk website.
As part of autumn statement 2016, the Government have announced that the legislation for the following measures will take effect before the introduction of Finance Bill 2017.
Enterprise investment scheme share conversions
The Government are introducing legislation to amend the qualifying requirements for the enterprise investment scheme and the seed enterprise investment scheme to clarify the application of the rules to share conversion rights. This change will be effective for shares issued on or after 5 December 2016. This is a wholly relieving measure to enable the Government to provide customers with certainty of treatment and enable the processing of a backlog of cases. Further detail on this measure will be contained in the draft legislation, explanatory note and tax information and impact note to be published on the gov.uk website on 5 December 2016.
Hybrids and other mismatches
The Government are issuing a technical note in relation to legislation that was passed as part of the Finance Act 2016, in order to improve the new hybrid mismatch regime. Following consultation with stakeholders, it was agreed that further technical modifications were required in two areas of the legislation. These were with regard to financial sector timing claims and the rules concerning deductions for amortisation. The technical note will set out the detail of the changes required and will be published on the gov.uk website on 5 December 2016. These modifications will take effect along with the new regime on 1 January 2017. Corresponding legislation will be introduced in Finance Bill 2017.
As part of the autumn statement 2016, the Government have made an amendment to public notice 733: flat rate scheme for small businesses.
VAT flat rate scheme
To counter abuse of the VAT flat rate scheme (FRS), the Government are introducing a new 16.5% rate for businesses with limited costs. The new rate will be introduced by statutory instrument and will come into effect on 1 April 2017 with draft legislation published on 5 December 2016. In order to prevent forestalling, HM Revenue and Customs has amended public notice 733: Flat rate scheme for small businesses. The relevant sections (sections 8.2 and 9.7) have force of law and ensure that businesses cannot avoid the new rate by arranging to issue invoices, or receive payments, before 1 April 2017 for services to be performed on or after that date. The amended public notice will be published on 23 November 2016 on the gov.uk website and the relevant rules will take effect from 24 November 2016.
[HCWS277]
Shale Wealth Fund
Jane Ellison Excerpts(7 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)
I thank the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) for bringing this debate to the House and for a typically thoughtful and constructive speech. I also thank other hon. Members who have stayed to make their contributions on this important topic.
I should say straight away that I absolutely agree that energy efficiency is one of the best ways to reduce energy bills in the long run, so we start on a note of consensus. As the right hon. Lady will know, and as I will make clear in my remarks, the fact that the consultation closed relatively recently inevitably limits a little what I can say. However, I enjoyed her speech, and I would like to make some general comments about where we are in terms of shale and the shale wealth fund.
The Government are backing the safe development of shale gas. We have over 50 years’ experience of regulating onshore oil and gas. The UK has the experience to develop our shale gas industry while at the same time ensuring the most robust and stringent protections for our environment, too.
We believe, as I sense other Members do, that shale gas is an important step forwards in a number of respects. It is a way to secure our energy supply by using our own domestic resources, as we have heard. It also brings with it the potential for tens of thousands of new jobs across various sectors, from the oil and gas industry to construction and engineering. I was very struck when I recently chaired our oil and gas forum in the Treasury just how many jobs are created in supply chains by these industries—it was one of the most striking things to come out of that discussion.
Of course, natural gas will continue to play an important role in our energy system as we move towards a low-carbon economy. We are absolutely committed to reducing our carbon emissions by at least 80% by 2050, compared with 1990 levels. Members on both sides of the House will recognise the fundamental importance of our doing so as part of the collective— indeed, global—efforts to stop climate change in its tracks. We are the first country to propose a phase-out of unabated coal, with gas and nuclear forming the secure base of our future energy mix as we continue to develop renewables and improve energy efficiency. I could not agree more that that is a really important part of the mix.
Shale will be a new, domestic source of gas, which adds to our energy security as we make the shift from coal to reduce our carbon emissions. Gas is the cleanest fossil fuel, producing half the carbon emissions of coal when it comes to generating power. Studies have shown that the carbon footprint of our shale gas would be significantly less than coal and comparable to the liquefied natural gas we import. In short, the shale gas resources beneath Britain could contribute to our security of supply, to jobs, and to increasing tax revenue, while providing a bridge to the greener future we all support.
That is why, in the previous Parliament, we put in place the right fiscal framework to make sure that the incentives are in place for investment in shale gas. It is worth reminding the House that there is an estimated potential cumulative investment in the region of £33 billion. As we explore our shale gas resources, we are also exploring how we can make the most of the benefits that the industry could bring to our economy. Specifically, we want to ensure that the communities and regions that host shale activity will benefit directly from doing so. By that, I mean that they should benefit beyond the boost to the local economy that one would expect them to receive in any case from the development of this new industry. The Prime Minister has been very clear on this. Local people must come first, not only in their involvement in the planning decisions that affect them, with all shale gas applications requiring a full consultation with local people, but in sharing the benefits with the areas in which the industry is developed, with a significant proportion of this expected in the north. That means that the shale industry could play an important role in the economic development of parts of the northern powerhouse, helping to drive local growth, investment and jobs even further.
Graham Jones
The autumn statement of 2015 said that the community dividend benefit of 1% is expected to rise to 10%. Are the Government going to make good, to local communities specifically, on that statement that the 1% dividend will rise significantly?
Jane Ellison
I am about to come on to the dividends for local communities and how we see that working through.
The shale wealth fund is a big part of how we are going to deliver these benefits for local areas. It will consist initially of up to 10% of all the tax revenues arising from shale gas production, all of which should be used for the benefit of the communities that host shale sites. I want to be clear on two points: first, this is new funding, not money used to replace any existing Government funding; and secondly, it will be in addition to any benefits provided by the shale industry itself, because, as Members know, the shale industry has independently committed to making payments to communities that host shale gas developments. The industry’s benefits scheme currently commits to providing £100,000 for each well site of hydraulic fracturing, as the right hon. Member for Don Valley said, as well as 1% of revenues from any site that enters into commercial production. The shale wealth fund is in addition to that. We estimate that it could provide up to £l billion in total and each community could receive up to £10 million. We want this money to go towards leaving a positive legacy for the future of these areas. I note that the issue of legacy was also on the right hon. Lady’s mind.
The shale wealth fund will be the latest in a line of local benefits schemes designed to support communities. For example, a number of renewable energy firms have made a voluntary commitment to provide community benefits of £5,000 per MW of installed capacity.
Graham Jones
The Minister says that this wealth fund is going to be available. I am Lancashire MP, so let us just talk Lancashire, where development of fracking is predominant at the moment. What discussions has she had with Lancashire County Council, Lancashire authorities, the local enterprise partnership or other interested parties about how the wealth fund may be delivered? How does she see it being delivered at a regional level in Lancashire?
Jane Ellison
I am afraid that, inevitably, it is a bit too early for me to comment in detail on that. The consultation closed only in late October, and we have had a very substantial number of responses that we want to go through very carefully. People have responded in quite some detail on exactly these sorts of issues, so we will return to this topic and it will be possible to look at them in more detail later on. Suffice it to say that we have had plenty of ideas about how this might work as we move forward, but we need to look at this carefully.
I was giving examples of other funds. The landfill communities fund is another example of statutory community benefits provision, and the Government’s coastal communities fund is also similar.
The Government have been clear that local communities should benefit directly from shale gas resources in their areas, because we are committed to delivering an economy that works for all, ensuring that the benefits of economic growth and investment are spread as widely as possible. We have also been clear, though, that local people often know best what the individual needs of their communities are. We want them not only to benefit from the fund, but to have a real say over how it operates.
That is why we have sought views from the country through our consultation on how the fund should operate and ensure tangible, lasting benefits for communities and regions that host shale activity. We asked how the shale wealth fund should be delivered, and what its priorities ought to be. As I have said, the consultation closed on 26 October. We have had an excellent response from a range of individuals and organisations—from right hon. and hon. Members, including the right hon. Lady, to charities, local businesses and community groups. We are now looking carefully at the responses, and we plan to publish our response to the consultation by the end of the year. I hope the House will therefore understand that I cannot give an indication of the responses at this early stage.
On publishing the responses, it is for respondents to consider whether to do so, but we will of course provide a list of respondents at the end of the consultation document, as we always do. I would have thought that councils and LEPs would normally make public their contributions. Given the interest in the debate, I am sure many people will decide to do that.
In answer to the right hon. Lady’s query about the purpose of the shale wealth fund, the main purpose is clear. The fund is a way of ensuring that, as this country develops our shale gas resources in a safe and sustainable way, local communities and areas that hold the resources and therefore support the industry’s development should directly benefit from doing so. As I have said, this could amount to as much as £1 billion of extra funding across these regions. We believe that local people should have a say over how best to use any such funding—for example, about whether it should be used to support new job opportunities, develop or enhance community assets, be invested in skills or be invested in green energy.
Caroline Flint
I understand that the submission from Lancashire County Council talks about the investment going into renewables or energy efficiency, but may I give the Minister a little word of warning? As the MP for a constituency that has been involved with the landfill fund and the aggregates tax, I know there can sometimes be a danger that only the loudest voices get heard. Quite a few local football teams get more strips than Manchester United because they are back every year putting into funds. Can we think bigger about the impact of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and will she bear that in mind?
Jane Ellison
Of course. I take this debate very seriously, and the fact that it has essentially taken place in a consensual atmosphere makes me think that there is a possibility the House can find things on which we substantially agree about how we move forward. We need to look at the responses. I am sure there will be other contributions and thoughts about how we move forward, but we just have not had the chance to look at them yet.
The right hon. Lady has made a significant contribution to the debate this evening, and she has clearly set the ball rolling in the House’s debate on a topic to which I am sure we will return. We have consulted extensively, asking how the shale wealth fund should be delivered and what it should be spent on. I look forward to reporting on the outcome of the consultation in due course. As I have said, I feel confident in saying that we will return to debate this important subject further, and I thank the right hon. Lady for kicking off the House’s debate on this issue in the way she has this evening.
Question put and agreed to.