Budget Resolutions

Peter Dowd Excerpts

1st reading: House of Commons
Thursday 1st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I am glad to see the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in her seat today, as she could not get one on Monday. I wish to comment on what a number of Members have said. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) asked, in a rather perplexed way, why the Government were spending all the headroom. The answer is: because they are up the creek. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) talked about the problems her local authority has because of the Government’s austerity plans. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) spoke similarly, as did many other Members.

The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) said young people need to be better off; well, that is why young people are voting Labour. Rather bizarrely, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) talked about sausages and Marxism; I hope his sausages are more sizzling than his speech was.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) made the case for devolution. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) talked about how women have been most affected by austerity. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may want to laugh at that sort of thing, but we take that very seriously. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) made a similar case. The theme was there throughout the debate: austerity has not ended and will not end under a Tory Government.

When I entered Parliament, I believed that a primary role of this House was to hold the Government to account. I looked at the parliamentary website to check out my assumption, and found that it says:

“Parliament works on our behalf to try to make sure that Government decisions are…open and transparent”—

that is a foreign land for this Government—

“by questioning ministers and requesting information”

and

“workable and efficient”—

not a concept routinely associated with this Government—

“by examining new proposals closely and suggesting improvements”.

However, the Government have systematically treated the House in the most contemptible way. All Members should be worried. First, the Government stitched up Committees with a Tory majority, even though they are a clapped-out minority Government who are not fit to govern. Secondly, they have obstructed substantive scrutiny of three Finance Bills in a row by not permitting any amendments to the law, which is unprecedented. Thirdly, behind closed doors they agreed a billion-pound deal with another minority party, without proper parliamentary scrutiny or the signatories to the deal being held to account by this place. Fourthly, without precedent they did not provide my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition with the traditional advance copy of the Budget statement. That is wrong. Fifthly, the Chancellor did not even have the courtesy to attend the House when my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor opened the debate on Tuesday afternoon. That is simply disrespectful, not to the individuals but to the protocols of the House.

The power grab by Ministers continues in the Budget resolutions—for example, in resolution 79, which is worryingly designed to give Ministers the ability to amend key tax legislation ahead of Brexit without parliamentary oversight. That is unprecedented and wrong and we will vote against it. We will continue to raise this egregious contempt for Parliament through any means we possibly can.

As for the Budget itself, the Prime Minister offered an end to austerity, but the promise has turned out to be as hollow as a Halloween pumpkin. The Chancellor claimed it would be a Budget for

“the strivers, the grafters and the carers”—[Official Report, 29 October 2018; Vol. 648, c. 653.]

but the spectre of austerity continues to haunt the country, and will do for many years to come.

[Leo Docherty]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Peter Dowd]

No, I will not.

There is nothing in the Budget for teachers, police officers and local government workers. There is not a penny for most frontline services, while local council funding is being cut by £1.3 billion next year alone. The Government have broken all their economic targets. They keep setting their own work, but they are marked an F grade every single time. Economic growth has been sluggish and is set to stay below 1.6% for the next five years. Productivity remains 15% lower than in other developed economies and the Government are doing nothing about it. Regional economic disparity is vast. Public sector investment is more than £18 billion lower than in 2010—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Aldershot talked about Marxism and brutal regimes. This is a man who has been to Saudi Arabia many times. That is the sort of brutal regime that he should be worrying about. It is an absolute disgrace.

Public sector investment is more than £18 billion lower than it was in 2010. That is not talking down the economy; that is talking up the truth. If austerity is over, why then is the Chancellor pressing ahead with a further £7 billion of social security cuts? The Health Foundation says that the money for the NHS is not enough. There is, of course, no mention of the £12 billion of outstanding loans and deficits that the NHS has had to use to get by.

On social care, the £650 million announced is less than half what the King’s Fund estimates is needed. Our children’s services are in meltdown. The additional money announced for universal credit is only half what was cut in 2015, and the list goes on and on. There is, of course, no shortage of gimmicks in the Budget. The introduction of a digital services tax is, I am told, already sending the tech companies into a frenzy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) says that it is media management.

In the labour market, one in nine workers across the country is in insecure work. Many are relying on credit cards to survive. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) reminded us earlier this week, since 2008 only one in 40 net jobs created has been full time. There was no mention of that particular fly in the ointment by the Chancellor. Eight years of austerity have ripped through our society and our communities, driving in-work poverty and inequality, and further entrenching the economic crisis caused by greed and avarice. Therefore, in that context, we will not stand in the way of more income for low and middle earners; they deserve some respite from the Government. That is unlike the Liberal Democrats, who evidently will be voting against their own flagship tax policy set out in their manifesto.

The Opposition’s amendment to resolution 1 sets out our progressive taxation policy, which we laid out in our manifesto in 2017, of increasing taxes for the top 5% to help pay for improvements in public services, which we all need and which many people across the country need. This amendment highlights our tax reforms, which would shift the emphasis on to the wealthy few, while guaranteeing no further increases of tax on anyone earning less than £80,000. Labour will challenge the Government every step of the way to introduce a more progressive taxation system despite their rigging of Parliament. This is yet another broken-promise Budget that does nothing to end the slowest recovery since the great depression.

Austerity has damaged our economy, weakened our recovery and divided our society. It has made poor people poorer, made them angry, made them fearful, and made them distrustful of the politicians on the Government Benches who they feel do not stand up for them against powerful lobbies. Austerity has made the richest richer; that cannot be right and that cannot be just. It is not in the national interest. Government Members have made a point of claiming that they are not ideological, that they are pragmatists. Let them prove their pragmatism and their open-mindedness. If they are so confident of their policies, so sure of their convictions, then quite simply let them support our amendment. What do they have to fear?

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Peter Dowd Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 12th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House declines to give the Finance (No. 3) Bill a Second Reading because it derives from the 2018 Budget which confirmed the continuation of austerity and tax cuts for the wealthiest, failed to introduce a fair taxation system which protects middle and low earners but requires a greater contribution from the top 5 per cent of highest income earners, implied real terms per capita cuts for unprotected departments between 2019-20 and 2023-24, failed to halt roll-out of Universal Credit with planned social security cuts still to come, failed to raise the funding needed for mental health services, failed to provide the long-term funding needed for long-term adult social care, failed to provide adequate school funding, failed to address the funding gap that local councils face, failed to end the funding crisis facing public services, with police, teachers, nurses and doctors having no reassurances that the public sector pay squeeze will end in 2019, failed to tackle child poverty and growing inequality across our country, failed to tackle the fact that 87 per cent of the impact of the Government’s tax and benefit changes since 2010 has fallen on the shoulders of women, failed adequately to address climate change and delayed the much-needed reduction in the maximum stake for fixed-odds betting terminals until October 2019, and because the Bill is not based on an amendment of the law resolution, thus restricting the House’s ability to properly scrutinise and improve the Bill.

I have to give credit to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury: he managed to keep his face straight throughout his delivery. We had lots of flowery words from him, and I am surprised that we did not have phrases in his cliché-ridden speech such as “sunny uplands”, “green shoots of recovery” and “the end of the rainbow”. Why were those clichés not in his speech as well?

We have been asked to scrutinise a Finance Bill under the most difficult circumstances the Government could create, short of barring the Opposition from actually attending the House. The timetable set for the Bill meant we were expected to table amendments on Second Reading before the Bill had even been published—an abuse of power. To add insult to injury, printed copies of the explanatory notes to the Bill only arrived in the Vote Office earlier today. How busy Members are expected to provide proper scrutiny under these conditions is beyond me. It is an abuse of power. Worse still, the Government’s refusal to table an amendment to the law for the third Finance Bill in a row means that we will be unable to meaningfully amend this proposed legislation following Second Reading. As I said in my speech on the Budget resolutions, that is unprecedented. It is another abuse of power.

Last week, the President of the United States fired his Attorney General to undermine an investigation against him. Mr Trump also barred a journalist asking legitimate questions from the White House. Perhaps he gave the Prime Minister the odd tip on how to side-step conventions and constitutional process. Stitching up Committees with a false majority, obstructing scrutiny of the Finance Bill and giving a £1 billion bung to a minority party to keep the Prime Minister’s Government alive are further abuses of power. In any other country, we would use a word for this behaviour: malfeasance, plain and simple.

This is a desperate state of affairs, especially given how much the Bill is in need of change. The Government’s policies announced in the Budget fail to tackle a single one of the great challenges now facing this country after eight years of austerity. Most notably, this Bill of broken promises fails to end austerity, as the Prime Minister said it would during her conference speech—once she had finished gyrating. As our reasoned amendment points out, this promise has been broken: £4 billion of Tory social security cuts are still on their way. Only half the money cut from universal credit work allowances was returned to the programme. There was nothing on the social security freeze or the two-child limit.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the reasoned amendment, which refers to the long-term funding of adult social care. Two Select Committees, the Health and Social Care Committee and the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, recommended a social insurance system in their inquiry’s report. Is he willing to support that cross-party recommendation as a solution to the future funding of adult social care?

[Peter Dowd]

The hon. Gentleman needs to speak to his own Government about cross-party support. My party cannot discuss these issues in this Chamber, let alone outside it. He would be better off engaging with his own Government on these matters.

What we have in the Budget is more spent on potholes than on our schools, not a penny more for everyday policing or fire services and nothing to begin to unravel the 40% budget cuts that have taken place across local authorities.

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

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) asked a very straightforward question, and I am going to give the hon. Gentleman another chance to answer it. Will he, as suggested by my hon. Friend, engage in cross-party support—yes or no?

[Peter Dowd]

It is not in the Finance Bill. Frankly, the hon. Gentleman should worry more about the 8% cut to per pupil school funding in his constituency than trying to get me to answer questions that the Government should be answering.

[Vicky Ford]

On police funding, when the Government proposed hundreds of millions of pounds of additional funding for the police by raising the police precept, why did the Labour party vote against it? [Interruption.]

[Peter Dowd]

From a sedentary position my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) says that one in four policemen have gone from his constituency. That is similar to what has happened in my constituency and, I suspect, in the hon. Lady’s constituency. There is not one penny more of day-to-day spending in the Budget. She should be asking her Government why the police are still being underfunded.

[Ruth George]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the huge rise in council tax for council tax payers on every level of income is a highly regressive form of tax? In my Derbyshire constituency, people are having to pay more council tax for fewer police.

[Peter Dowd]

“Regressive” and “Conservative Government” go in the same sentence pretty easily.

The Budget does not move us towards parity for mental health services. It does nothing to end the crisis in social care, to which the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) referred, or in children’s services. It gets worse as the days go on. The Budget was a continuation of austerity under anyone’s definition, and the Bill is a written testament to that broken promise.

[Charlie Elphicke]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman is very passionate. May I just take him back to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake)? Will he support that generous and very sensible proposal? Does he think that that is the right way to go about things?

[Peter Dowd]

Look, we are always prepared to look at any idea, but we are trying to deal with the problem today. We are trying to deal now with the hundreds of thousands of elderly people who are not getting the service they are entitled to.

[Alex Chalk]

Back in 2010, at the height of the crisis the hon. Gentleman’s party left us with, it was a Labour Chancellor, Alistair Darling, who said that Labour would close the deficit by 2020. That will not now happen until 2025. How can the hon. Gentleman credibly suggest that this is an austerity Budget?

[Peter Dowd]

That is remarkable coming from an hon. Member who is a member of the party that promised us all that the deficit would be gone by 2015.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

The Government have apparently suggested that we should have a cross-party talk to resolve the issue of social care. They were offered that chance by the Labour Government before the 2010 election and they turned that opportunity down. Let us set the record straight. Tory Members talk about Labour Governments leaving office with high unemployment, but the Major Government left 3 million people unemployed. We introduced the minimum wage, and they said it would lead to 3 million people unemployed.

[Peter Dowd]

National living wage—the clue is in the title—but what the Government have proposed is not a living wage.

The Chancellor did not use the phrase “climate change” once during his hour-long speech—it felt longer than an hour, I’ll grant you that—despite the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which warned that we only have 12 years to avert climate catastrophe. The Government cling to their woeful plastic straws initiative, but the only measure in the Bill addressed to the 100 corporations that produce 71% of our global emissions was yet another tax break. That is the sort of stuff that the Government should be tackling. This is for the oil industry. The Government have really got to get to grips with its approach to climate change. This oversight is catastrophic. History will remember the Government’s failure to tackle the greatest threat to humanity—that does not overstate it.

Meanwhile, the vulnerable suffer. The Government reneged on their promise to tackle the social devastation wreaked on our communities by fixed odds betting terminals, causing the resignation of yet another Minister. It has since become apparent that they reneged after lobbying by the gambling industry, in spite of the known link between these machines and people taking their own life. Here we have it: the Chancellor of big business pays little regard to the tragedy of lives lost to this awful addiction, as long as the gambling industry can keep making a return and continue its donations to the Conservative party—a fact.

So what remains in the Bill when all these pressing issues have been left out? There has been much discussion about the Government’s change to tax thresholds in clause 5. Let me make our argument clearly: after eight years of austerity, we will not stand in the way of any change that will put additional income into the pockets of low and middle earners, regardless of how that is brought about—[Interruption.] We have said that time after time. However, Labour’s policy remains that we believe we should be taxing the wealthiest more to deliver the end of the austerity that the Tories have failed to provide. We will therefore table an amendment to clause 5 setting out our tax proposals. These proposals would protect everyone earning below £80,000 a year— 95% of the population—from any further tax increases, while ensuring that the top 5% of our society pay their fair share. We call on the House to support our amendment in the Committee of the whole House.

[Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman concede that 1 million people will be lifted out of the higher rate of taxation and that many of them are consultants working in hospitals, GPs, senior police officers and senior council officers? Does he not recognise that that is a good thing?

[Peter Dowd]

The hon. Gentleman really must listen more—[Interruption.] I will send him a signed copy of my speech; he might learn a thing or two.

We believe in building a coalition of the many—a broad, democratic movement of 95% of the public—to spread prosperity across the furthest reaches of our country. We cannot in good faith increase taxes on those who have struggled for eight long years while the richest continue to accrue even more wealth.

[Vicky Ford]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way—I was listening. What does he intend to do to individuals earning over £80,000 a year?

[Peter Dowd]

Actually, we set out our tax policies in “Funding Britain’s Future”, and I will send a signed copy to the hon. Lady for her to have a look at. Perhaps Government Members can have a tutorial with Sir Roger Scruton and tease out some of the issues.

On Brexit, yet again, we have seen the Government using our exit to hand themselves broad powers, indefinitely. This is a continuation of the theme that I described—of a Government’s demand for power, even though they are clueless about how to exercise it.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The whole House understands that the hon. Gentleman is very enthusiastic about raising the rates of taxes for richer people, but does he not remember that the experience of reducing the top rate of tax from 80% to 60%, and then from 60% to 40%, was that more money was brought into the Treasury on each occasion? Labour’s plans to increase taxes will mean less money for the Treasury and less money for the NHS.

[Peter Dowd]

International evidence does not show that, but let me give the hon. Gentleman a figure. The top 1% have received an increase in share of total income—from 5.7% in 1990 to 7.8% in 2016-17. That was identified by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

What I do not understand—if the hon. Gentleman really believes this—is why, for 99.3% of the time that the last Labour Government were in power, the top rate of income tax was 40%, whereas for the duration of this Government, it has been either 45% or 50%. Does Labour say one thing in power and a completely different thing in opposition for purely opportunistic, party political and vote-winning purposes?

[Peter Dowd]

A Conservative Member of Parliament talking about opportunism! It is not quite as bad as the Liberal Democrats talking about opportunism, I grant you, but there we are—[Interruption.] I think the hon. Gentleman should worry about working people in his constituency who, overall, are £800 a year worse off after the longest fall in wages since the Napoleonic era—I suspect that one or two Government Members were here at the time. The Prime Minister has stood staring at the Brexit menu for two years while her Cabinet devours itself in the queue behind her.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

According to the economist David Smith, if Labour policies at the last election had been implemented, people who were earning between £100,000 and £120,000 a year would have been paying, on that element of their earnings, a marginal rate of taxation of 72%. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that that is a fair burden of taxation on earners at that level?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

In the context of a fair taxation system, as set out in “Funding Britain’s Future”—which, again, I exhort the hon. Gentleman to look at—we look at everything, and we will look at everything, unlike the Government.

The indecisiveness that I referred to means that the Government have to try to amass as much power as possible so that, if the Prime Minister cannot make her mind up, our hands are tied in a constitutional sense. It seems that, when Tory Brexit theocrats talked about wanting to take back control, they wanted us to give it to them. We cannot allow such a vast power grab to take place from a Government who have shown such disregard for our constitution already.

Turning to another issue, I draw the House’s attention to the measures that are supposed to address tax avoidance—hope springs eternal. Once again, these are simply inadequate. They are a series of half-measures that leave so much room to wriggle, they must have been written by the Prime Minister. The Government promised us a full public register of beneficial owners. Where is it? I have looked through the Bill numerous times—I have to admit, it was painful—and I can see no reference to it. It is yet another broken promise.

We have been waiting for two years for the Government to act to tackle burning injustices, yet they seem more focused on fanning the flames. Again, we find ourselves being forced to debate a Bill that is heavy on rhetoric, as evidenced in the speech from the Minister, and light on content. No wonder the Government will not let us amend it. They are scared that we would put something useful in it and add some policy to the lacuna that is there now.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

Does my hon. Friend agree that a response to the Taylor review would be the start of something real and possible and the abolition of payment between assignment contracts?

[Peter Dowd]

I refer my hon. Friend to the response given by the Minister earlier. We are prepared to look at all proposals.

[Vicky Ford]

The shadow Minister just said that the Bill is light on content, but it is 315 pages long. I have just read his Labour party document “Funding Britain’s Future”, which is eight pages long, three of which are footnotes. What am I missing, sir?

[Peter Dowd]

What is the hon. Lady missing? A great deal, I would contend.

[Rachel Maclean]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the policy on tax collection, so surely he will welcome the Government’s innovative approach to unexplained wealth orders. These measures have already been implemented. They are an innovative approach to capturing people who seek to avoid our tax system, and they are bringing wealth into the Treasury. Surely he can find something to welcome in that.

[Peter Dowd]

They have been so successful that the Government have only used them once.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

The Bill might be thick, but it is low on content when it comes to public sector funding for public sector pay—we notice that that is for the spending review—and it is very light on content in relation to the Taylor review and people on zero-hours contracts.

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend, who is a great advocate for his constituency, is spot on. Some 4.5 million children—7,000 per constituency—are living in poverty in the UK. Conservative Members should concentrate on sorting out that kind of problem. That is what the Government should be focusing on.

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Gentleman just talked about spurious rhetoric, but I want to take him back to what he said about climate change, because he completely misses the point. The Government are doing more on climate change than any before them. A great deal of it is being done by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—it is about joined-up thinking. We have the 25-year plan, the Agriculture Bill, the green growth strategy and the electric car strategy, and measures in the Budget draw this together. The plastics tax is one very good example of how seriously we take the issue.

[Peter Dowd]

Investment in renewables is down. The idea that the Government are green is itself green—it is a pathetic claim.

The Government promised us a public register of beneficial ownership. I have asked before: where is it? It is another broken promise. I call on the House to support the amendment to give the people of the United Kingdom action on the great challenges facing our nation, which the Government appear incapable of addressing and which have been ignored for too long.

I end on the note I started on: the abuse of power. It was once said that:

“Worse than a corrupt government is an incompetent one, not least because having the second characteristic does not exclude the first”.

Given the way the Government have behaved over the ability of Parliament to do its job, that notion is becoming closer and closer as the days progress. It should be deeply worrying to any democrat.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 19th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Julian Knight]

My hon. Friend answered the hon. Lady’s intervention better than I did, so I do welcome what he said.

Let me sum up. In its treatment of tax thresholds and stamp duty, the Bill lays out a fairer tax system. It is a tax system predicated on a better society, and it is a system where people who can pay have to pay their fair share, but where that is achieved without being punitive and without, frankly, trying to put dogma over the reality of the situation.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I am glad to have this opportunity to debate the issues surrounding new clauses 1, 2 and 3 in my name and the names of others in the Committee of the whole House, and to discuss them in the context of the Government’s attempts to distract attention from their woes. We have just had a lesson in voodoo economics from the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight).

Members need to pay attention to Labour’s proposals in relation to new clauses 1, 2 and 3, but I must first point out that, in response to the Government’s authoritarian restrictions on amending this Bill, we had asked whether the entire legislation could be debated on the Floor of this House. That would at least have ensured a scintilla of constructive discussion among Members on the whole Bill. Alas, our request was denied by the Government, and we are left yet again asking for reviews and assessments as set out in our new clauses. It is important none the less to get these issues about child poverty out into the open. The Government increasingly seek to implement their austerity agenda—for that is what it is—behind closed doors. They will no doubt see our new clauses as an irritant that would highlight the differences between a slash-and-burn approach to public services by the Government juxtaposed with a policy of investment, renewal and rebuilding from this party based on a fair taxation system, as identified in our new clauses.

The Government have practised their manoeuvres in Committees that they have stitched up to give themselves the majority, which they do not deserve, and they do not have the guts to allow proper amendments to their Bill. No Minister has had the decency to defend that position and it is pretty pathetic. The electorate did not give them that mandate, but they arrogantly take it in any event, so it is important that we debate and tease out the issues that we have set out in new clauses 1, 2 and 3.

[Leo Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman mentions tax cuts. Will he describe whether the Opposition support the tax cuts laid out in the Bill?

[Peter Dowd]

The hon. Gentleman was that busy talking about sizzling sausages and Marxism last week that he did not hear what I had to say. Now, it is not for me to constantly repeat myself—although I know the Tories do it all the time—so I suggest he reads last week’s debate in Hansard.

Luckily, I am pleased to see that even these mendacious measures are not enough to prevent this Government from a slow-motion collapse. The twists and turns continue. If the weekend reports in the media—specifically The Sunday Times—are anything to believe, if this House votes against the deal, No. 10 has a

“dark strategy to twist arms.”

So what is the cunning plan? Well, No. 10 seeks to

“encourage a crash in financial markets after losing a first vote in the hope this stampedes MPs into voting for it a second time”.

This is ordinarily known as extra-parliamentary activity. The fact that the media are actually putting that scuttlebutt into print, however bizarre, simply shows the desperation in No. 10, so it is important that we do tease out the issues, as we will with new clauses 1, 2 and 3, but this situation bears witness to the siege mentality now at pathological—some might even say clinically obsessive—levels in Downing Street.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I am sure that my hon. Friend, like me, was glued to the television at 10 o’clock last night, watching a documentary “A Northern Soul”, about a man called Steve living in poverty in Hull and his inspiring work to help the children living in that city. I therefore give my hon. Friend my wholehearted support in particular for new clause 2, which would provide for a tax impact assessment to look at how we can genuinely help people like Steve who have suffered so badly under this Government.

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend is right. I am afraid that the Government are in denial over the question of child poverty; I will come back to that point shortly.

Quite simply, the Prime Minister and those around her have lost the plot; and there have been plenty of plots recently. This Government would not know progress if it stared them in the face, which is why we need new clauses 1, 2 and 3. It is little wonder that the Government have presided over eight years of economic ineptitude that have seen our tax system and society becoming increasingly unequal.

As I said on Second Reading, Labour will not stand in the way of any change that would put additional income into the pockets of low and middle earners. Maybe that answers the question of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), so he might not have to look at Hansard. Low and middle earners have borne the brunt of the economic failure of this Government and we will not take that cash out of their pockets. However, we believe that the richest in our society and those with the broadest shoulders should pay more tax to help support our public services and finally end austerity. This is not a controversial view, at least among the morally orthodox.

[Leo Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman mentions tax increase. If Labour were to put in its plans for a wholesale renationalisation of major parts of our economy, how much extra tax would the average British taxpayer be paying?

[Peter Dowd]

Dear, dear—none. The hon. Gentleman really has to take his nose out of the Tory voodoo economics book, widen his horizons and look at Labour’s “Funding Britain’s Future”.

One only needs to look at our European neighbours to see that the rate of tax on higher earners in this country is relatively low compared with Germany, France, Sweden and even Ireland. To set the ball rolling, Labour’s new clause 1 would require the Chancellor to lay before the House a distributional analysis of the effect of reducing the tax threshold for the additional rate to £80,000 and introducing a 50% supplementary rate for those earning more than £125,000 a year.

These are Labour’s policies, committed to in Labour’s very, very popular manifesto of 2017. They will put—[Interruption.] I know that Government Members do not like to hear this, but these policies will put the country on a much fairer fiscal footing, ensuring that the wealthy pay their fair share for the restoration of our social fabric, which is crumbling after eight years of gruelling Tory austerity.

The fact is that since the financial crash a decade ago, the very rich have only become richer. The Institute for Fiscal Studies identified that the top 1% have received an increase in share of total income from 5.7% in 1990 to 7.8% in 2016. In response to the hon. Member for Aldershot, it is no wonder they are paying more taxes—they have had the biggest share of total income.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that this Government are determined to tackle these important issues of income inequality, to the point where income inequality and inequality of disposable income are now at their lowest level since before the financial crisis, when his party were managing the economy?

[Peter Dowd]

Well, they are not making a very good job of it—there are 4 million people in poverty. That is the fact. Conservative Members can deny that until they are blue in the face, but that is the reality.

Let us move on to the issue of infant mortality. Infant mortality has risen for the first time since the 1990s, when the Tories were last in government, and, as I indicated, there are 4.5 million people living in poverty. That is a fact, and they should not pretend otherwise. They should at least have the guts to admit that their policies have got us into this situation.

This stark contrast in living standards has been driven by the Government’s remorseless austerity agenda, which has chopped away at our fiscal checks and balances. By narrowing the tax base while continuing austerity, they have entrenched poverty and inequality across the nations and regions, leaving vulnerable groups—particularly women—worse off.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a really important point, and it is reflected in the changes to life expectancy that we have seen over the last eight years. Life expectancy for the poorest women in Sheffield has fallen by four years since the Conservatives came to power in 2010. Is that not a further reflection of the devastating impact of austerity on inequality in this country?

[Peter Dowd]

Quite simply, it is shameful—it is as simple as that.

New clause 2 would require the Treasury to undertake an equalities impact assessment of the changes to the personal allowance and its impact particularly on child poverty. This assessment will include households at different income levels, groups protected by the public sector equality duty and the regions and nations—this is the Labour party speaking for the whole of the United Kingdom.

Such an assessment is needed now more than ever. The Social Metrics Commission recently found, as I indicated before, that 4.5 million children are living in poverty in the United Kingdom. That is shameful. The Government claim that none of this matters as long as parents are finding work, which ignores the fact that work is no longer a sustainable route out of poverty. Indeed, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that more than two thirds of children in poverty live in a working family.

We know that the assessment set out in new clause 2 will further justify the United Nations special rapporteur’s investigation into this Government’s policy of austerity last week. The poverty envoy found that the policies of austerity had inflicted “great misery” on our citizens, and he went as far as to say that the “fabric of British society” is falling apart as a result. That is absolutely damning.

[Alex Chalk]

The hon. Gentleman is talking a lot about the politics of austerity. The United Kingdom last lived within its means in 2001. Under a Labour Government, when would the United Kingdom next live within its means?

[Peter Dowd]

I do not accept the premise of these trumped-up ideas from voodoo economics presented by the Tory party. The reality is that the report was absolutely damning. It was absolutely devastating, and Government Members should be ashamed that somebody from the United Nations should come to this country and objectively lay out the facts as they are.

Sadly, in true Trumpian style, the Government chose to ignore the UN special rapporteur. Live on “Channel 4 News”, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury buried his head in the sand, saying

“there is a…strong push to reduce poverty”.

Well, it is not getting pushed hard enough. The Financial Secretary refused to acknowledge that there are 1.5 million people living in destitution, despite repeated questioning. A cursory look at this Government’s policies demonstrates that, for eight years, they have felt it was reasonable to punish the poorest to let the bankers off the hook. How can this Government be so out of touch?

I now turn to new clause 3. According to HMRC’s own statistics, over £400 billion a year is spent in tax reliefs. Entrepreneurs’ relief costs £2.7 billion a year alone, and benefits only 52,000 people.

[Alex Chalk]

The hon. Gentleman is very generous in giving way a second time. If Labour Members were to get back into power, would they change the tax system so that people had to pay tax from £6,750, as in 2010? Does he agree that that would cost working people an additional £1,000-plus a year?

[Peter Dowd]

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the shadow City Minister’s article on LabourList, which sets that out very clearly.

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

I’ll send you a copy.

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend will send the hon. Gentleman a copy and he will sign it—and Conservative Members might actually learn something. I know it is difficult for my hon. Friends to grasp the concept that Conservative Members might learn something, but they actually might.

Entrepreneurs’ relief costs £2.7 billion a year alone, and benefits only 52,000 people. This bloated relief—and it is bloated—is overwhelmingly spent on a small number of wealthy individuals, with 6,000 claimants receiving relief on gains of over £1 million. I will repeat that: 6,000 claimants receive relief on gains of £1 million. It is no wonder then that the IFS and the Resolution Foundation have called for it to be scrapped. Clause 38 and schedule 15 represent yet another Conservative half-measure.

[Rachel Maclean]

As a former entrepreneur, as in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I did not benefit from this particular relief, but many in that community do benefit from it. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that this should be scrapped, which would penalise people who start businesses in this country and go on to employ people who then pay taxes and put food on the table for their families? Is the position of the Labour party to be completely anti-entrepreneurs?

[Peter Dowd]

The Treasury has not reviewed the relief and does not know whether it is working, but it has chucked £2.7 billion—I repeat, £2.7 billion—at a relief that affects only 52,000 people. There is something not quite right with that. I get that and my hon. Friends get that, but Conservative Members are in denial about it, as they are about child poverty.

[Leo Docherty]

Given that the hon. Gentleman is against relief for entrepreneurs, will he tell the Committee whether he is also against small businesses being relieved of their rates, with business rates being slashed by one third? [Interruption.]

[Peter Dowd]

Out of courtesy I will respond to the hon. Gentleman. What we want is a fair taxation system, which is completely and utterly alien to the Government. It is as simple as that.

[Stephanie Peacock]

My hon. Friend pointed out that the Government are in denial on child poverty. That is absolutely clear in my constituency in Barnsley, where 6,000 children live in poverty. Does he agree that poverty is a political choice caused by the Conservative party?

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend is right, and for the Tories that choice comes first, second and third, and it always will.

On one hand the Government are lengthening the qualifying time for investors from one year to two, but on the other hand they are ensuring that shareholders will be protected from falling below the 5% threshold needed to claim the relief when a company is sold. It is hard to see how this confused measure will tackle the growing cost of the relief.

Naturally, the Opposition, the Resolution Foundation and the IFS are not the only ones who have found this measure perplexing to say the least. The Chartered Institute of Taxation has raised deep concerns about its retroactive nature, its lack of clarity and the likelihood that the reforms will hit small businesses the hardest—the businesses that the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) no doubt had in mind in her intervention. Far from making the relief more equitable, this measure will instead insulate wealthier claimants who can rely on expensive tax advisers to navigate red tape, ensuring that the cost of the relief will continue to bloom.

The cost of corporate welfare has risen steadily under this Conservative Government. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is the one form of welfare that Government Members support. In contrast, the Labour party is committed to undertaking a full and comprehensive review of corporate tax reliefs when—not if—we reach government. That is why we have tabled new clause 3, which would require the Government to undertake a full review of entrepreneurs’ relief. The review would consider the overall number of entrepreneurs in the United Kingdom, the annual cost of the relief, the cost per claim and the impact of the relief on productivity in the UK—productivity that is 15% below our comparators in the G7 and 35% below the Germans. The Government should be getting to grips with that fact, not fiddling around with entrepreneurs’ relief.

Government Members should ask themselves how they can justify the amount of money going to 52,000 people while our public services are falling into disrepair. This relief is clearly in need of urgent review to ensure that the taxpayer is not being ripped off. They should be clear that if they choose to vote against new clause 3, they are voting against the interests of taxpayers across the country. Again, this is £2.7 billion for 52,000 people.

I hope that Government Members will support our new clauses 1, 2 and 3, for the reasons that I have outlined. This authoritarian Government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich have lost all credibility to manage the affairs of this country. They no longer know what they stand for, nor do they have the courage to find out. This Bill of broken promises takes us no further forward in meeting this country’s mounting challenges, so I call on Members throughout the House to support Labour’s proposals to create a fairer society and a fairer tax system. If we are unable to change the Government’s course, we will challenge the Bill at every step of the way, notwithstanding the authoritarian shackles put on us by this authoritarian Government, and we will use it to put an end to this aimless and divided Government.

[Richard Graham]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), although there were moments during his speech when I found myself wondering whether history was being rewritten in a remarkably creative way.

The changes that the Government have proposed come against a background of remarkable achievement in cutting the deficit by four fifths, reducing the unemployment rate to its lowest since the 1970s, giving 32 million people tax cuts and taking 1.7 million out of income tax altogether. Some of those things were denied by the hon. Gentleman, who claimed at one point that the rich were only getting richer. I think it therefore falls to me to offer a few statistics to put his comments into context.

The first comes from the Institute for Fiscal Studies analysis of what went on under the previous Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman, who is chuntering with his colleague the shadow Chancellor, should focus on that IFS analysis. The independent analysis from the IFS shows very clearly that on most measures income inequality during the 13 years of the previous Labour Government went up. Part of the reason for that was explained, helpfully, by the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) in an interesting interview with The Guardian the other day. He pointed out that the attitude of the previous Labour Government was, to quote the former deputy Prime Minister, Lord Mandelson, “intensely relaxed” about the filthy rich. The hon. Member for Norwich South rightly went on to say that during the 13 years of the Labour Government:

“The huge fortunes of those at the very top…were left almost untouched.”

That is why the work done by this Government, which for example includes scrapping child benefit in 2013 for those earning over £50,000, has led to the lowest tax gap for a very long time. The percentage of income tax paid by the top 1% has doubled under the Conservative Government. The hon. Member for Bootle therefore needs to think hard about that IFS analysis. Income inequality went up under the 13 years of the Labour Government and it has gone down in eight years under the Conservatives.

There are other points worth highlighting. For example, people on lower and middle incomes actually have more money in their pockets now than at the start of the financial crisis under the previous Labour Government. The gap, as I pointed out, between those on the lowest and highest incomes is lower than it was when the Labour Government left power in 2010. In fact, income inequality is now close to its lowest point since 1986. That is a remarkable achievement. Over the past 30 years, which include 13 of a Labour Government, income inequality narrowed sharply under this Conservative Government.

Labour Members have made a lot of points about employment, so it is worth highlighting that the growth in employment benefits most the poorest 20% of households. The employment rate is now up by more than seven percentage points on where it was before the financial crisis under Labour in 2007. Thanks to the national living wage, the income of the lowest earners has actually grown by almost 5% since 2015, higher than at any other point across the earnings distribution. The actual situation today in our economy for those working is therefore very different from that painted by those on the Opposition Benches and by the hon. Gentleman.

A crucial and major difference between the Labour party and the Government is on taxing business. The uncomfortable truth for Opposition Members who would like to tax business more is that since the Government cut corporation tax in 2010 receipts have gone up by 50%, generating an extra £20 billion in 2016 over what was generated in 2010. The extra £20 billion we found for the NHS above inflation for this five-year period does not come from nowhere; it comes from increased receipts and growth in the economy. That extra £20 billion raised from corporation tax, as a result of cutting corporation tax, is one of the critical economic differences between those on the Government side of the House and those on the Opposition side. The Opposition still believe that if they tax businesses more they will get more tax. The truth, however, is that if we tax businesses less we incentivise business and entrepreneurs, generating more tax receipts to put into our vital public services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

If the hon. Gentleman is so sure of his position, what is wrong with providing for a review of the effectiveness of entrepreneurs’ relief, as new clause 3 would do?

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Gentleman is kind to mention that, but the fact is that we on the Government side of the House believe strongly in incentivising the entrepreneurs. They are the ones producing the technologies of the future—Fintech, Edtech, every sort of tech—and the reason why this country has seen more investment in technology in London alone in the last year than Germany, Spain, Ireland, the Netherlands and France put together. These incentives to businesses are what generate the additional tax revenue I highlighted earlier.

The changes to gambling tax are among the most significant measures proposed. These are fundamentally about what is morally right, and I am delighted that the Government have found a way to do the right thing, not just by reducing the maximum stake for fixed odds betting terminals from £100 to £2, but by introducing it rapidly and by raising the remote gambling duty from 15% to 21%. If I could make one request of the excellent Minister, it would be that he consider other ways to reduce the amount of online gambling advertising and to raise more tax revenue from it.

This is an important discussion. Some of the facts offered earlier by the Opposition were completely astray from reality, and I strongly support what the Government are doing to incentive business, encourage more people into work and, above all, benefit the lowest earners. It is worth finishing with one last statistic from the OECD: the proportion of jobs that are low-paid is at its lowest level in this country for at least 20 years. That is a significant achievement on which we can hope to build yet further in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Before I speak to my new clause 18, I want to gently chastise the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). He is not in his place at the moment, but I am sure that someone will respond to this for him. He very inappropriately raised quite selective data on inequalities, a subject that I spent nearly 20 years working on before I came to this place. He should know that we are the seventh most unequal country of the 30 developed countries in relation to income inequality. By some measures, we do worse than others, but overall, economic equality is not just about income; it is also about pay and wealth. We need to be mindful of this fact, and selectively reporting data is not a practice that we should be indulging in.

I should like to declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for health in all policies and as a fellow of the Faculty of Public Health, following more than 20 years of national and international work in this field prior to becoming an MP. It is lovely to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. New clause 18 would require the Government to commit to undertaking an assessment of the effects of the personal taxation measures in the Budget—including changes in the personal allowance and the higher rate threshold—on poverty, on the public’s health, including their life expectancy and healthy life expectancy, and in turn on public services.

The reason I have tabled this new clause is that, over the past eight years or so, I have seen the gains made under the previous Labour Government being totally reversed by this Government. Those gains included the reduction in the number of children and older people living in poverty and the improvements in health including an increase in our life expectancy and reductions in health inequalities. As the UN’s special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, said on Friday, the cuts and reforms introduced in the past few years have brought misery and torn at our social fabric. He went on:

“British compassion for those who are suffering has been replaced by a punitive, mean-spirited and callous approach”.

As I mentioned in my point of order earlier, I am afraid the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) demonstrated this exact point in his comments on the “The Andrew Marr Show” yesterday. The lack of humanity he showed in his response to the plight of Emily Lydon, who is being forced to sell her home because of issues with transitioning on to universal credit, shamed not only himself and the Government of which he is a Minister, but this whole House.

[Peter Dowd]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the massive cuts in the public health budgets that are now controlled by local authorities have simply made matters considerably worse in the public health field?

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend is totally right. Those budgets were ring-fenced to start with, but they are now absolutely emaciated. This is stopping us doing the prevention work that we should be doing. We made massive investments in public health, and they were having a real impact in terms of health gain. I am afraid that that is now going by the bye.

We know that there are 14 million people living in poverty in the United Kingdom, 8 million of whom are working—the highest level ever. It is fine for Conservative Members to speak on a positive note about employment rates, but they should be asking themselves why we have such high levels of in-work poverty. That, too, brings shame on us. Two thirds of the 4 million children living in poverty are from working households. How on earth are young people expected to learn and to excel at school if they are constantly hungry?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Brereton]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s comments, which show the responsible approach we on this side of the House have taken to the economy, compared with the approach the previous Labour Government took.

[Peter Dowd]

rose—

[Jack Brereton]

And now the hon. Gentleman is going to tell us about Labour’s future approach if they ever get back into office.

[Peter Dowd]

As the hon. Gentleman is talking about borrowing, does he agree that the Tory party in the last eight years has borrowed more money than all Labour Governments put together?

[Jack Brereton]

The hon. Gentleman will have seen the figures that show that debt is now coming down to lower levels than ever before, and we have seen the deficit back under control after the failings of the previous Labour Government who got us into an horrendous mess that working families in this country ended up paying for.

We are now seeing the numbers of low-paid workers at a record low, and we are seeing low taxpayers now paying record low levels of tax. The astonishing turnaround achieved in making work pay, not least through tax measures like those before us today, means that the Office for Budget Responsibility has now revised up its assumptions for the trend labour market participation rates and revised down its estimate of the equilibrium rate of employment. As the Treasury rightly highlights in the Red Book paragraph 1.15, both of these revisions raise the level of potential output, which is good news for the sustainability of the labour market boom which has undoubtedly been the greatest achievement of the policies pursued by this Conservative Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Brereton]

That is absolutely right. We should be looking at those figures, not some of the figures being used by Opposition Members, who want to keep people on a level of pay that is lower than it would ever be, because they want to keep people out of work and keep people in the workless society we saw under the previous Labour Government.

We on this side of the House have made work pay, and the long-term benefits of doing so are clear in the expansion of our non-inflationary production potential. The last time unemployment was so low, 40 or more years ago, there were massive peaks in inflation. The contrast with today is stark and we should be proud of our work as a country in digging ourselves out of the mess left by the Labour party.

For people in Stoke-on-Trent making work pay has added to the renaissance of our fine, proud city and its industries, and the situation is the same in once-forgotten manufacturing towns across the country, which are seeing a revival in real jobs for real levels of take home pay. Indeed the ONS estimates that real household disposable income per head was 4% higher in quarter 2 of 2018 than at the start of 2010, and the OBR expects it will increase by a further 3.2% by the end of 2023. At the same time, income inequality is down, and is lower than it was in 2010. To refute a number of the claims made from the Opposition Front Bench, the number of children in absolute low-income poverty has fallen since 2010.

[Peter Dowd]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but if he is so convinced of his policies in relation to the issues he is talking about, why will he not support the provision in section 5 of the Act of an impact assessment on child poverty and equality? What has he got to fear?

[Jack Brereton]

The reason is that the facts show that the number of children living in absolute poverty has fallen since 2010 and will continue to fall, because of the policies of this Conservative Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Brereton]

Thank you, Dame Eleanor. The statistics I have used show that income inequality is lower than it was before the crash, and this is all alongside our continuing to reduce the deficit and debt, and meeting our targets three years early, while continuing to invest more in our vital public services. This responsible approach to public finances has seen our economy and the number of jobs boom, compared with the spiralling-out-of-control economy under Labour.

I was pleased that the Minister with responsibility for high streets—the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry)—visited my constituency on Friday and talked about some of the measures we are taking in this Budget to support towns like Longton and Fenton in my constituency, helping to address some of the issues on the high street. I hope we can get some of the £650 million pot announced in the Budget to convert many of their empty premises back into use and help with business rates to ensure that retailers with a rateable value of under £51,000 will receive relief, as that will be hugely welcome by the smallest retailers in our towns.

I also want to comment on some of the views expressed by Opposition Members about entrepreneurs’ relief. I was shocked that some of the views were so anti-business and anti-enterprise. We must condemn those views, which are damaging businesses in constituencies up and down the country.

[Peter Dowd]

rose—

[Jack Brereton]

Can the hon. Gentleman answer that one?

[Peter Dowd]

The hon. Gentleman must not misquote. We are looking for an assessment of entrepreneurs’ relief, and if he believes that what he suggests is good value for money for taxpayers he would support a review of that relief. What is wrong with that?

[Jack Brereton]

I just wanted to talk about the relief in Stoke-on-Trent as well. Entrepreneurs’ relief in my constituency will help many businesses that are starting up. We have some fantastic retention rates in Stoke-on-Trent; we have some of the highest new business start-up retention rates in the country, and that relief is critical in helping those businesses.

The measures introduced in the Budget to increase the time period from 12 to 24 months will help to ensure that it is businesses that are genuinely contributing to our economy that will receive the relief, making a huge contribution to the development of new technologies and innovation that we so much support in our economies throughout the country.

The proposed reductions in corporation tax in the Budget and the relief on capital allowances, which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) spoke about, will also be a huge support for many of the businesses in my constituency, particularly manufacturers. Around 15% of the economy in Stoke-on-Trent is made up of manufacturing businesses. Those measures will be a huge support for those businesses, increasing the amount of machinery and equipment that they can buy. Increasing relief on capital allowances and the investment allowance up to £1 million will help more of those businesses to buy new equipment and invest in the plant in their factories. I welcome that measure, which will help not just those manufacturing businesses, but the huge number of businesses up and down the country that produce that machinery and the workforces in those industries, which are so valued up and down the country.

--- Later in debate ---

For that reason, I fully support the measures in clause 5, which provide an opportunity to take yet more people out of income tax, building on the work done by the coalition Government. To return to a point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), it is very easy to create fiscal drag by having people pay higher taxes. Reducing those taxes reduces the drag and increases the amount of money in the economy. More people spend more money, which helps businesses to employ more people and creates a virtuous cycle from which we all benefit.

[Peter Dowd]

The hon. Gentleman refers to things being virtuous. I am sure that he believes that new clause 1 is virtuous, in that it sets out an assessment of the effect of reducing the threshold for the additional rate to £80,000, which is the Labour party’s policy. If he wants the facts and the evidence, why does he not support new clause 1, which will enable us to get all the facts and the evidence? Then we can have another debate, in which we can talk about Plutarch and Cicero until the cows come home.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

The actual author of that article called the Prime Minister a word that would be unparliamentary if that is what he said. He called her that particular word. If the author is calling the Prime Minister a particular word, should the hon. Lady not accept the fact that the author did not say that?

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is rightly respecting parliamentary language. Rather than refer to language that is unparliamentary, if he simply wants to say that the alleged author of those alleged words denies them, he is at liberty to do so.

[Peter Dowd]

Thank you very much, Dame Eleanor. That is precisely what I wanted to say.

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I fear that we are getting bogged down and dragged into areas that I do not wish to go into, given that I do not have very much time. I merely wish to make the point that Labour’s record demonstrates its disregard for managing public finances responsibly. What it also does, as we have heard from Members, particularly from those on the shadow Front Bench, is help us to see their approach to entrepreneurs—those people who sacrifice and work, sometimes for decades, to start businesses. They seek to attack and punish those people who often put their lives on the line and who often take considerable sacrifices to start businesses. Those entrepreneurs up and down the country may not be paying themselves for many, many years because they have to meet the payroll of their workers. We see the approach from the Opposition to those people. We are talking about entrepreneurs’ relief that will come to fruition only when that entrepreneur wishes to sell or dispose of part of a business that may have lasted over a lifetime during which they have paid tax, contributed to our economy and created jobs.

[Peter Dowd]

rose—

[Rachel Maclean]

I am sorry, but as much as I enjoy debating with the hon. Gentleman, I will not take any more interventions because I do not have much time and I have taken one already.

We have heard a lot of philosophy tonight. I will not quote Cicero again, but I will draw the House’s attention to the Jewish philosopher Maimonides who said more than 2,000 years ago that the greatest form of social justice and charity is to start a business and to create jobs. Therefore, I reject the Opposition’s amendment on the entrepreneurs’ relief. However, we should definitely keep it under review, and I am absolutely sure that the Treasury will do so because we on the Government Benches want to ensure value for taxpayers’ money in all the things that we do. We recognise that we are spending not the Government’s money, but our constituents’ money, and we need to do that carefully.

I now wish to address the movement on the tax thresholds, because this relates to a fundamental Conservative value.

Finance (No. 3) Bill (Second sitting)

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 27th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

Optional remuneration arrangements: arrangements for cars and vans

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 7, page 5, line 2, at end insert—

‘(8) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effect of the provisions in this section on the motor vehicle industry in parts of the United Kingdom and regions of England and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(9) In this section—

“parts of the United Kingdom” means—

(a) England,

(b) Scotland,

(c) Wales, and

(d) Northern Ireland;

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

This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the impact of clause 7 on the automotive industry, broken down by nations and regions.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 18, in clause 7, page 5, line 2, at end insert—

‘(8) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effect of the provisions in this section on the availability and uptake of optional remuneration arrangements relating to cars and vans and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.’

This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the impact of Clause 7 on the uptake of optional remuneration schemes relating to cars and vans.

Amendment 19, in clause 7, page 5, line 2, at end insert—

‘(8) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effect of the provisions in this section on tax receipts and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.’

This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the revenue effects of Clause 7.

Amendment 22, in clause 7, page 5, line 2, at end insert—

‘(8) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effect of the provisions in this section on the vehicle hire sector and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.’

This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the impact of clause 7 on the UK vehicle rental sector.

Clause stand part.

[Peter Dowd]

I hope everybody had a refreshing lunch and that not too much claret was drunk.

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

That is enough.

[Peter Dowd]

That is a nice start to the afternoon. I will turn to amendment 17 to 19 and 22 which, I must say at this stage, we will also push to a vote unless we have the acquiescence, capitulation or otherwise of the Minister after he has heard my words of wisdom. I hope he has even more divine intervention and inspiration this afternoon from his officials telling him to agree with me.

Clause 7 introduces further reforms to optional remuneration arrangements for cars and vans. The measure seeks to make two changes to the current regime, as outlined in the Treasury’s policy paper. First, it is designed to

“ensure that when a taxable car or van is provided through OpRA, the amount foregone, which is taken into account in working out the amount reportable for tax and National Insurance contributions purposes, includes costs connected with the car or van (such as insurance) which are regarded as part of the benefit in kind under normal rules”.

Secondly, this measure is also expected to

“adjust the value of any capital contribution towards a taxable car when the car is made available for only part of the tax year.”

I imagine that the Treasury’s line is that this seeks to ensure that the value of this benefit is connected only to cost, but we are concerned that these changes may further complicate pre-existing optional remuneration arrangements that are already in place for employers and employees to utilise company cars and vans. That in turn may be a deterrent, as some employers may consider that it is too much hassle or too bothersome, and that there is too much red tape, when it comes to offering such a scheme. Similarly, employees may decide that the risks and liabilities of taking up the offer of a company car or van scheme may be too high, and that under these circumstances both rentals and automotive sales may fall.

To put it as succinctly as I can—I accept that I am prone to being succinct, which is a fault of mine—the Opposition do not believe that it is in the interest of our economy, which is heavily reliant on the automotive sector for jobs, or that of workers, to make it harder for them to use a company car or van through an optional remuneration scheme. That is why we have tabled amendment 17, which would amend page 5, line 2 of the Bill and insert:

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effect of the provisions in this section on the motor vehicle industry in parts of the United Kingdom and regions of England and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act”

as linked to the nations.

I accept that Government Members must recognise the clear link between automotive sales and their use as company cars or vans in optional remuneration arrangements. Work vehicles make a significant contribution to the automotive industry’s more than £82 billion annual turnover and £20.2 billion of value added.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that further complicating the optional remuneration arrangements for employees who wish to use a company car or van could have an effect on the automotive sector as a whole? That would be terrible.

[Peter Dowd]

It would be. That goes to the heart of the point. We want to tease this issue out and have a review. I know we have raised a million and one issues for review, but that is as much as we can do in the current climate. That is what we want to do: we want to tease all these matters out.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that a review would enable us to tease out some of the matters that were presented to us and to explore some of the expert information that has been provided to us? For example, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales tax faculty said that the clause will lead to a tax charge so, for example, emergency repairs will be initially paid for or arranged by an employee and then met by the employer. If we had a review, we could look into that matter and others in more detail.

[Peter Dowd]

That organisation is always helpful, and it points us in the direction that the Government should go in. That goes to the point I am making.

Many proposals have come back to bite us, so we need a proper review to see how they are bedding in. For example, according to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the automotive industry employs 168,000 people directly in manufacturing, and more than 856,000 are employed across the wider industry. It accounts for 12% of total UK exports of goods, and invests £3.65 billion each year in automotive research and development. More than 30 manufacturers build in excess of 70 models of vehicle in the UK, supported by 2,500 component providers and some of the world’s most skilled engineers. The automotive industry represents 1% of all employment in the UK and 7% of all manufacturing. It is also one of the few industries in the United Kingdom that has had a huge productivity increase since the financial crisis. The manufacturing of motor vehicles went from 5.4% of UK manufacturing in 2007 to 8.1% in 2017. Those figures do not, however, reflect the role that the automotive industry play in communities across the nations and regions of the UK, and the impact that a fall in sales or rentals relating to optional remuneration might have.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech in support of the communities around the country that are reliant on motor manufacturing, which include Tyne and Wear, Derby, Swindon and Merseyside. Does he think that the Government should undertake and publish a proper impact assessment on the communities that will be affected by the changes outlined?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

Yes. That links to others issues. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) is having issues with the car factory in his constituency, where 200 jobs are threatened. These issues are all linked. When the industry is under threat, or there is a potential threat, even if it is not actually visible, we must take steps to ensure it does not appear on the horizon. Our proposal would help that process.

For example, the west midlands has by far the largest number of motor vehicle manufacturing employees of any UK region or country. There are 54,000 employees in the industry working in the west midlands. That is about one third of all motor industry employees in Great Britain. We have to take into account the fact that if fewer companies offer optional remuneration arrangements, that could directly affect jobs in that region. The Government’s job is to plan and—they said this in their industrial strategy—to ensure we are prepared for all eventualities. Our proposal helps with that preparation.

The second-largest region for automotive manufacturing is the north-west, where my constituency is located. It employs 24,000 people and accounts for 7% of the total industry and 1% of all employment. I recognise that a slowdown in automotive sales could be related to a fall in the use of company cars and vans, and could cost workers their jobs. Members from Scotland, where the automotive industry accounts for around 4,000 jobs and 2% of the total UK manufacturing sector, and Members from Wales, where the automotive industry accounts for 9,000 jobs, feel the same. Similarly, any fall in the sale of rental cars and vans used in optional remuneration arrangements will have an impact on foreign direct investment into the UK, as there are now no British-owned mass car manufacturers operating in the United Kingdom. It comes back to the point made by an hon. Member about foreign direct investment. We do not want to put it off.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

Given the sounds being made by the car makers Nissan over Brexit uncertainty, it would be a most foolish approach if those safeguards were not taken, and if there were no proper impact assessment or analysis of the industry.

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend is right. To some extent, that is part of the concern we have had about impact assessments and financial reviews on industry generally in relation to Brexit. This is part of the tapestry or mosaic of issues that we always have to keep to the fore if we are to protect jobs. All parties have said that they want Brexit for jobs and the economy. We have said it time after time, and this completely fits in with our policy of trying to protect jobs and our economy. Let us look to the future of how this might impact on an important part of our industry, rather than leaving it to chance.

The domestic automotive market is home to foreign volume car manufacturers, with other companies specialising in commercial or luxury brands, including Honda, which has almost doubled production at the Swindon plant—£240 million of investment into the Burnaston site was announced in March 2017. Jaguar Land Rover invested £400 million in a new engine plant, equipment and the expansion of its design centre in 2015. In October 2016, Nissan announced that it would produce two new models in Sunderland. Members on both sides of the Committee understand that uncertainty in an industry such as the automotive industry, which plans 10 or 15 years in advance, can be disastrous and cost jobs. We need only to look at the current uncertainty around Brexit, as I have indicated, to see that this is clearly the case. Large automotive companies express concern on a daily basis. My colleague the hon. Member for Oxford East receives regular representations from companies in her area who are deeply concerned about the future of the industry in the UK, and any fall in use of company cars will not add further confidence.

I accept that Government Members may accuse me of scaremongering, but figures from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs showed that 940,000 employers paid benefits in kind—tax on a company car—in 2016-17. That was a 2% fall on the 960,000 recorded the previous financial year. The decline is not isolated—the number of company cars has decreased over the last 10 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Lewis]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Peter Dowd]

Yes.

[Clive Lewis]

As I sit here listening to my hon. Friend describe the obscure way in which this tax is being implemented, I wonder whether it would it be fair to call it a stealth tax.

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. One could argue that it is a stealth tax, although I think what the Government have introduced is more like an incompetence tax. I am not sure they know the consequences of what they have unleashed, but I suspect my hon. Friend’s use of the term “stealth tax” is pretty apposite.

We all know that employers will have invested in vehicles in good faith on the basis of those calculations, together with the comment from HMRC that that was the correct way to calculate charges. It is therefore to be expected that they will feel let down and perhaps even blindsided by these changes. The more I think about it, the more I think they will consider what the Government are introducing as a bit of a stealth tax.

The ICAEW found that, where vehicles with allowed private use are provided to employees under OpRAs, the clause will impose unexpected increases in tax and national insurance charges on employees and employers respectively. The only way to avoid those charges will be for the employer to dispose of the vehicle. That is likely to result in the employer receiving lower than expected proceeds if the vehicle is owned outright, or suffering financial penalties if the vehicle was acquired under an ongoing contract. It may also upset the employer-employee relationship, which might ultimately lead to both employee and employer leaving the scheme entirely.

That concern led the Opposition to table amendment 18, which we will press to a vote. The amendment seeks to insert the following subsection:

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effect of the provisions in this section on the availability and uptake of optional remuneration arrangements relating to cars and vans and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”

In effect, it would require the Chancellor to publish a review of the impact of these changes on the number of employees choosing to enter into optional remuneration arrangements. The amendment goes to the heart of the Opposition’s concern that the Government’s constant tinkering and fiddling deters people from taking up such schemes and, no doubt, other schemes.

That feeds into the wider criticism of the Treasury—and Ministers, I have to say—as backed up by the Chartered Institute of Taxation, regarding the constant need to rework and reform measures. The perception is that this is happening all the time. That takes us back to the point raised by the Scottish National party’s spokesperson about the need to tease out these issues in advance and put them into the domain. Let us tease them out and try to get a little bit of sense out of the mix. This amendment goes to the heart of our concerns, and this tinkering and fiddling about just confuses things more.

It is telling that the changes have come about not because of a new onus to reform optional remuneration schemes for the benefit of employees and employers, but rather to clean up the mistakes made in the previous Finance Act. In practical terms, that is what has happened. The Opposition have consistently called for the Government to take a more considered approach to taxation, including the introduction of Public Bill Committee witness sessions, as mentioned both previously and today. Were these concerns and those of the tax experts and advisers who have to implement the change taken seriously, Ministers would not have to come back to the House to redo their homework on every Finance Bill. This is my fourth Finance Bill—excluding the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill—and that seems to be a regular occurrence. Instead, Ministers should be able to get it right first time, not just in relation to consultation but in enabling us to help them do their job.

[The Chair]

Order. You have made quite a few generalised remarks about consultation, Mr Dowd. It would be appreciated if you could keep your speech to the points of the amendment.

[Peter Dowd]

Thank you, Ms Dorries. The Minister considered the number of people who will be affected by the measure—1 million—to be rather small. The measure will have a disproportionate impact on van drivers and those who have company cars. The Treasury’s impact assessment shows that the majority are male and, no doubt, from various backgrounds. The Opposition want to get these changes right, which is why we are pushing for the Minister to report back to the House after six months and to offer clear evidence as to why they have had a negative impact on the number of employees able to use a company car or van under these schemes.

Given the lack of knowledge shown by small and medium-sized enterprise employers and employees when it comes to changes to optional remuneration schemes, it is hard to understand how the introduction of these measures will not incur additional expense for both. In fact, in its response to the consultation on the new measures, ICAEW found:

“The new clause introduces additional costs which will change the cost model on which the acquisition finance model was based.”

The Opposition therefore have a healthy scepticism for the Treasury’s figures on the revenue raised from these changes, because it is clear that there will be an additional cost.

In an effort to gain further clarity of the revenue effects of this measure, the Opposition have tabled amendment 19, which we will invoke later. The measures in clause 7 are part of the Minister’s clean-up operation to fully implement the wholesale reform of optional remuneration schemes introduced in the previous Bill. The reforms are aimed at targeting employers and employees who might use salary-sacrifice schemes for the purposes of tax avoidance. With that in mind, the review should consider the changes in the context of wider Government reform of optional remuneration schemes and include the impact of the changes to this specific scheme on the total revenue.

Turning to the vehicle rental sector, an increasing number of the company cars and vans offered by optional remuneration schemes are, in fact, rentals. That means that any changes to these schemes will have consequences for the vehicle rental sector. That is why we have tabled amendment 22, which would insert the following in line 2 of clause 7:

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effect of the provisions in this section on the vehicle hire sector and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

I certainly accept the hon. Lady’s contention that oversights are never acceptable—of course they are not. As I set out, there was significant consultation and scrutiny of both the policy measure and the detailed legislation. Unfortunately, on this occasion the two issues being highlighted here did not come to the appropriate attention in the drafting of the 2017 legislation. If the hon. Member for Aberdeen North is saying that there was insufficient scrutiny, I do not believe that was the case, given the large amount of scrutiny applied in this circumstance.

The changes are expected to affect a small proportion of the 1 million or so individuals who are provided with a company car or van for private use. The average cost of the changes for those affected has been estimated at between £120 and £140 a year in extra tax. There will also be a slight increase in national insurance contributions for employers, in line with the original policy intent. The Exchequer yield from the changes is estimated to be negligible, but by stopping the growth of separate arrangements, significant amounts could be protected.

The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon suggested that the issue of emergency repairs needed to be looked at in greater detail. That is already covered by the legislation. As the explanatory notes state, the clause

“does not affect the operation of sections 239(1) and (2) in relation to other payments or benefits. For example, should an employer reimburse an employee for costs incurred (such as replacing a tyre), the exemption in section 239(2) will still apply.”

HMRC will also ensure that that is reflected clearly in the guidance.

[Peter Dowd]

I want to bring some of the points I raised to the attention of the Minister again. He talked about consultation. Let us not take the totality of the automotive industry, because it is a big industry. What about Arval, which is a leasing company? Did the Government think, “We are going to make changes to leasing and rental arrangements, so let’s consult those companies directly affected”? Were any of those companies, many of which are quite big businesses, consulted on the measures?

[Mel Stride]

As I said, there were 259 written responses from employers, tax professionals and representative bodies, 77 from individuals, and 18 meetings with a wide range of employers, tax professionals and representative bodies, including two with the ICAEW. Officials had face-to-face meetings with more than 100 employers. There was pretty extensive engagement. The Government are constantly liaising very closely with industry. I know that the Exchequer Secretary recently met, for example, the chief executives of Vauxhall and Jaguar Land Rover in Ellesmere Port, and discussed a variety of important issues. The measures in the Bill were not raised on that occasion, but if the suggestion is that we are not close enough to industry and to businesses, I can assure the hon. Member for Bootle that we are.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the potential impact of the measures on the tax yield. I will use his figures—always a slightly risky thing to do, but I will on this occasion. [Interruption.] That may be unfair. He suggested that the tax yield per company car is, on average, £2,638. It is estimated that in the order of 10,000 individuals of the 1 million company car users in the UK will be affected by the ironing out of the deficiencies in the 2017 legislation—10,000 individuals will be adversely impacted by now having to pay the correct tax rather than being able to rely on the deficiencies in order to legitimately avoid that tax. That equates to about £20.6 million of forgone taxation, if every single one of those 10,000 were, as a consequence of the changes, to drop having a company car.

Of course, there are two points to make here. One is that the vast majority will not do that, so it will be a figure well below £20 million per year, and the other is that it will be offset by the additional taxation brought in by those who will no longer be absolving themselves of taxation as a result of the deficiencies in the 2017 Act. With regard to the impact on tax that the hon. Gentleman raises, I suggest that that underpins the Treasury’s view that the impact will be negligible.

The Government have already published a tax information impact note on clause 7, in line with normal practice. As set out in that note, as I have already said, clause 7 simply corrects two anomalies in the existing legislation. These changes affect only a very small number of people who have been taking advantage of the loopholes, so it will not have a significant impact on any of the areas addressed by the amendments. I therefore call on the Committee to reject the amendments tabled. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Peter Dowd]

I want to pick up on a couple of points. We keep coming back to the fact that the Minister seems to brush aside the woeful lack of consultation aimed specifically at leasing companies. They are the ones dealing with this day in, day out. They are the ones who draw up the contracts. They are the people who the Government should be going to. I do not know whether the Government have been to those particular companies, but in future maybe that is something they should consider. If they have, and if I were to have conversations with those companies in future, I would check that they were aware that the Government did discuss this with them because, if that is the case, they appear to have been asleep on the job. I do not know whether that is the case, but I am sure we can check with them; I am certainly happy to check with them.

That goes to the heart of the issue about consultation. It is happening time after time that the Government are rushing through this legislation, and having huge amounts of tax legislation is complicating things as time goes by. The Bill before last, I think—I have lost track of them—was the largest Finance Bill we had ever had. I think that was before the election. It was an attempt to ram through a whole load of proposals that, fortunately, the Opposition at that point were able to stop.

I do not think 10,000 people being affected by this is a small number. It may be a small number in proportion to the number of people who could have been affected by it, but 10,000 people affected is a fair old whack. I am sure that if I were standing here saying that Labour was going to take £150 or £200 off 10,000 people, the gasps of outrage from Conservative Members would be palpable.

The other thing worth noting is that I think an awful lot of people entered into these arrangements in the best of good faith, and the Minister talking about them “taking advantage” of the tax loophole was maybe an unfortunate phrase. I do not want to pick him up on that point, but it is important to note that the vast majority of people affected by this entered into these arrangements with the best intentions, and I do not suspect that they were in any way trying to find any loopholes. They would have been advised of these arrangements by their employers or by leasing or rental companies, and I do not think it would have been on the basis of, “Here’s a tax dodge; here’s a tax loophole; go down this path.” It is important that we try to put that into context.

[Mel Stride]

I will briefly respond to those comments. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, because he is about to tease out from me, as he likes to term it—his term “teasing out” has gone into the parliamentary lexicon—the specific issue of consulting leasing companies and listening to their views, which we also feel is important. The draft legislation was subject to technical consultation between 6 July and 31 August 2018. One of the written responses we received was from the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association, so we certainly had input from it.

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about those 10,000 people affected, I think two things. First, I certainly accept, and I think I said so in my remarks, that this was not tax avoidance, but a deficiency in the way the tax legislation has been brought into effect. In no way am I casting any aspersions on the activities of those who have benefited from that deficiency. Secondly, this is not about going out and taking money off 10,000 people —I think that was the expression the hon. Gentleman used. It is just about ensuring that the tax rules we introduced in 2017, which operate effectively for the vast majority of taxpayers, apply to everybody, rather than almost everybody.

--- Later in debate ---

Beneficiaries of tax-exempt employer-provided pension benefits

[Peter Dowd]

I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 11, page 7, line 39, at end insert “but only if the requirement in subsection (3) is met.

‘(3) The amendment made by subsection (2) may only have effect if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid before the House of Commons a forecast of the effect on the public revenue of that amendment coming into effect in the tax year 2019-20 and subsequent tax years.’”

This requires a review of the revenue implications of the provisions of this clause to be reported to the House of Commons before this section can have effect.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 15, in clause 11, page 7, line 39, at end insert “but only if the requirement in subsection (3) is met.

‘(3) The amendment made by subsection (2) may only have effect if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid before the House of Commons a report of a forecast of the effect of that amendment coming into effect on pension benefits to which the exemption in section 307(2) of ITEPA 2003 applies.’”

This requires a review of the effect on pension benefits of the provisions of this clause to be reported to the House of Commons before this section can have effect.

Amendment 16, in clause 11, page 7, line 39, at end insert “but only if the requirement in subsection (3) is met.

‘(3) The amendment made by subsection (1) may only have effect if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a statement to the House of Commons detailing discussions between Her Majesty’s Government and the Charity Commission regarding the provisions of this section.’”

This requires a statement to the House of Commons on discussions between the Government and the Charity Commission on this clause.

Clause stand part.

[Peter Dowd]

The explanatory notes state:

“This clause will amend the tax exemption which provides for employer paid premiums into life assurance products and employer contributions to certain overseas pension schemes to be paid free of tax. Currently, premiums and contributions are only exempt from tax if the beneficiary is the employee or a member of the employee’s family or household. This clause will allow the beneficiary to be any individual or registered charity.”

The explanatory notes go on in some detail, and I exhort hon. Members to read them because they are pretty important and give context to the clause. They state:

“The amended exemption will also allow employees to nominate a registered charity, which is consistent with existing government policy of providing tax relief on charitable donations.”

We tabled a number of important amendments to the clause to ensure it does not create any unforeseen issues with regard to charitable giving, which all parties have long supported. Amendment 14 requires the Government to review the revenue effects of the clause before it comes into effect. That is merely a matter of good practice. It seems that the Government are no longer willing to provide the Opposition with the full information that we need properly to scrutinise the measures they are introducing through Budget legislation, nor the legal means by which to amend them.

We are not asking for much—merely a simple statement setting out the cost of any measures introduced. We were kind enough to perform that exercise for our Conservative colleagues in our “grey book” ahead of the 2017 election, as they all know. It is a fantastic read, I have got to say, and I am happy to sign any copies of it. Unfortunately, the Government did not return the favour.

We are not alone in calling for such information. The amendment reflects the advice of the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Institute of Government, whose report, “Better Budgets: making tax policy better”, states:

“we have heard that the exceptional processes around tax policy making—in particular, secrecy, more limited scrutiny and challenge, and the power of the Treasury—have led to an ever-lengthening tax code, beset by a series of problems: confusion for taxpayers, poor implementation, political reversals and constrained options.”

That just about sums up what we have been saying today. The report sets out 10 steps to make tax policy better. Again, I ask hon. Members to look through it. It says, for example, that the Budget process should contain fewer measures, and that those should be better thought-out and capable of being implemented efficiently by HMRC, with politicians making informed decisions. It asks for:

“Greater stability in the areas of the tax system where taxpayers—individuals and business—need to make long-run decisions. A tax system that commands public support—and is robust enough to raise the money we need to finance the state we want.”

We are particularly interested in step 9, in relation to this amendment:

“Enhance Parliament’s (and the public’s) ability to scrutinise tax proposals…Parliament needs to do a better job at scrutinising Finance Bills”.

That theme continues throughout the report. It sets out in some detail—I will not go into that now—the issues around the unclear value for money, which is also repeated time and again in the Public Accounts Committee report for 2015-16.

We believe that the amendment, which requests a Government analysis of the cost of these new relief proposals, would help the Government to progress towards enhancing parliamentary scrutiny of the measures that they are introducing, as described in the report that I mentioned. After all, we know that the clause will have some revenue effects as it would introduce a tax relief, under certain circumstances, where there was not one before. It is also in the Government’s interest, surely, to provide such a figure, as that would show the impact of their attempts to boost charitable donations, for example. The Government may, of course, be attempting to support additional revenue streams for charities, but we must consider the wider aims of charities.

The original intention of the big society, for example, was to slash formal public expenditure as part of the proposal—whether it did is a matter of conjecture—but there is a question about how the Government plan to pay for the measures introduced in the clause. I note that the Chancellor is currently unable to pass any tax increases for fear of the immediate loss of support from the Brexiteers, but it is important that we focus our attention on the impacts of continued or further relief being introduced in the clause. If the measure introduced in the clause had been in our manifesto platform, revenue effects would have been included in the costings, and we ask the same of the Government. Let us put the figures in; that is what the amendment seeks to do.

Amendment 15 is an important one, which requires a review of the effects of the provisions of the clause on pension benefits to be reported to the House of Commons before the section takes effect. The precise impact of the provisions on pension benefits is unclear, and I hope the Minister can clarify that. As she will know, our current pension system operates an “exempt, exempt, taxed” system. The House of Commons Library explains that system well in its briefing on reform of pension tax relief. I will quote a bit of it, because it is important:

“The tax treatment of pensions follows an ‘exempt, exempt, taxed (EET) model’…Pension contributions by individuals and employers receive tax relief and employer contributions are exempt from national insurance contributions”,

and it goes on,

“but individuals are able to take up to 25% of their pension fund as a lump sum on retirement.”

I quote that only to give a flavour of the context. Under the previous arrangements for the tax-exempt employer-provided pension benefit, some taxation would have been paid on employer contributions to certain overseas pensions systems, where the beneficiary was an individual or a charitable organisation which was not one of those listed in the original Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003. Those tax-exempt beneficiaries were listed on that legislation as follows:

“‘Retirement or death benefit’ means a pension, annuity, lump sum, gratuity or other similar benefit which will be paid or given to the employee or a member of the employee’s family or household in the event of the employee’s retirement or death.”

The amendment poses a question about the impact on the overall pensions benefits if taxation is not being paid because of the exemptions the clause introduces, and asks whether an analysis of that impact has been done and, if not, why the Treasury has not looked into the matter. The clause makes a broad reference to overseas pension schemes, and it would be helpful if the Minister listed which schemes the clause would affect, and specified where they are actually based overseas. The overseas element is important, especially in the light of the Government’s decision not to uprate the state pensions of British overseas residents, which, in many cases, leaves many older people abroad destitute.

The current system of pension taxation clearly has many inequalities, which means that the way that taxation is applied to pension benefits tends to favour the wealthiest. Top rate tax payers only have to contribute 60p of every £1 saved. Meanwhile, those on low incomes have to pay 80p for every £1 saved. That is a factor in the pensions system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that when he says Charity Commission, he also means OSCR, which is the relevant body in Scotland?

[Peter Dowd]

Yes, I agree to that point of clarification. That is the intention. The Charity Commission and the Scottish body would no doubt recognise the seriousness of this problem, and in their strategy for dealing with fraud, they make the following point:

“The commission continues to see, and has to act on, serious problems arising in charities in relation to poor financial management and inadequate financial controls, accounting and record keeping. In 2010-11, out of 1,912 completed compliance assessment cases, the proportion involving serious concerns about fraud, theft and other significant financial and fundraising issues increased from 16% the previous year to 26%.”

Figures for subsequent years can be found in the commission’s annual publication “Tackling abuse and mismanagement”. The commission goes on to say:

“The National Fraud Authority in its annual fraud indicator report of 2012 estimated annual losses of £1.1 billion, or 1.7% of annual charity income during 2010-11.”

There is therefore a problem, because that is cash not going where it was intended. The impact of fraud and financial crime on a charity, particularly smaller charities, can be significant, going beyond financial loss and the impact of the financing of a charity’s planned activity. These crimes cause distress to trustees, and so on, and have an adverse effect on the charity. It is important to deal with them, says the Charity Commission.

If the Treasury is going to offer tax incentives for charitable donations, it is vital that the proper safeguards are in place to ensure that tax forgone does not act as an incentive to other risks. For example, from my understanding, the Charity Commission holds the only centralised list of registered charities; therefore a clear procedure for HMRC and the Charity Commission to communicate would be necessary to guarantee tax exemption. That is important.

[Bambos Charalambous]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and raising some excellent points. Does he agree that there is a need for further transparency on how these proposals were put together by the Treasury? Does he agree that there is a case for a public register of charities that benefit from this tax exemption?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

If the Government decided to listen to us and undertake such a review, they would have the ability to tease out—to use that phrase—to check, to put into the mix all these important issues. We do not claim to have absolute authority on how this should be done, which is why we think wider consultation and an extensive review are absolutely appropriate. We all want the £1 that someone gives to a charity to go to the charity, and not be siphoned off in some fashion.

What procedures does HMRC already have in place for instances in which a nominated beneficiary turns out not to be a registered charity, but the person who nominated it assumed that it was? It is an important question, and it surely presents ethical issues if someone chooses to donate their benefits on the basis of fraudulent information. That is not what we want. Clearly, in the event of their passing on that information, it would not be changeable. Does HMRC plan to apply tax in those circumstances?

This will be made all the more difficult by the Government’s repeated attacks on the Charity Commission, which has been attacked time and again. Six years of cuts have led it to repeatedly warn that its ability to properly regulate the charity sector is being limited. We must take that factor into account. As reported by Devex, the news website for the global development community:

“The commission has a staff of 290 and a budget of £21 million, and while budgets have declined, the number of charities it oversees has grown by around 5,000 since 2009. The charity income it regulates has jumped from £52 billion in 2010, to more than £74 billion in 2017.”

Former Charity Commission board chair William Shawcross wrote in a 2014 report that,

“our funding position remains unstable, a matter which has been recognised by many in the charitable world and which I have raised with Government. We cannot absorb unending cuts to our budget and may have to consider alternative sources of funding.”

What assessment has the Treasury made of the impact of this measure on the struggling, underfunded commission? I hope that this matter was discussed with the Chancellor when the clause was prepared. I do not expect so, but I hope that it was.

Finally, it is clear that the measure could represent yet another injection into some private schools that operate as charities under Charity Commission guidelines. That has been recently confirmed by the House of Commons Library, which stated:

“The Government has stated that there are about 1,300 independent schools which are registered as charities and that there is a great variation in size of school across the sector: There are approximately 2,300 independent schools in England, ranging in size from the very small…Many of them are very small…The fees range from £20k per year in a prestigious day school…to far smaller amounts…Similarly, quality varies from world-leading education to some small, poorly-resourced schools”.

What assessment has the Treasury made of the amount of tax that will be forgone owing to the nomination of those particular schools?

[Clive Lewis]

I thank my hon. Friend for his scintillating speech, which is so full of detail and which I think everybody appreciates. Far be it from me to be a class warrior, but given yet another tax giveaway to the independent schools, which he mentioned, many Opposition Members would say that it is high time that those independent schools had their charitable tax status ended, and that omitting them from this measure would be a good start to that process.

[The Chair]

Order. The amendment is not about that.

[Peter Dowd]

In relation to the amendment, it is important to ensure that, where charitable donations are given—whomsoever they are given by and to—the giver knows, in good faith, that the cash that they give will go towards genuine charitable purposes. That is the key issue. Whether the definition of “charity” is open to debate in relation to any organisation is another matter. The key, and the point I think my hon. Friend is trying to make, is that charities really ought to be charities.

We hope that a statement on the discussions between the Charity Commission and the Chancellor would address some of these issues. It continues to be a big issue in this country that people who can afford to pay their taxes should pay their taxes. It is important that anybody who gives to a charity can rest assured that their charitable donation, won through their hard work, will be used with the best intentions. Our amendment would, in all good faith, ensure that.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The Committee will be glad to hear that I will speak only briefly. I am happy to support the Opposition’s amendments. I want to focus on amendment 16, which deals with the communication that is needed between HMRC and the charities regulator. That is incredibly important. We need such communication for individuals to be assured that their money will go to the right place and that the correct tax exemptions exist for that.

Amendment 16 would require the Chancellor to make a statement to the House

“detailing discussions between Her Majesty’s Government and the Charity Commission regarding the provisions of this section.”

If the Minister is minded not to accept the amendment, which is very sensible and the provisions of which it would be easy for the Government to carry out, is he willing to write to Opposition Members about the discussions between the charities regulators in England and Scotland and the Government, the nature of those discussions and the advice the Government have received from charities on the potential impact of the clause? Will he also cover the eloquent point made by the hon. Member for Bootle about ensuring that protection from fraud is built into any changes that are made under the clause?

If the Minister is minded to accept the amendment, that would be grand. If he is not, will he commit to contacting us with those details so that we are aware of the discussions the Government have had and we can be both comforted that our constituents who decide to give their benefits to charity can do so knowing they are less likely to be the victims of fraud as a result, and aware that HMRC is across the issue and ensuring that people do not unintentionally become victims as a result of the changes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Members for Bootle and for Aberdeen North for their contributions, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole for his congratulations, which should largely be for me, because I am the Tax Minister and this is, after all, a tax measure, but we will leave it at that.

Clause 11 makes changes to modernise the tax exemption for premiums paid by employers to provide their employees with retirement and death benefits in life assurance products or certain pension schemes. Employers can provide death benefits for an employee through a life assurance policy or a retirement benefit through pension schemes. The employee will receive a pension out of those payments when they retire, or they can name a beneficiary to receive any payment of retirement benefit after they die.

Currently, most premiums or contributions paid by employers into these schemes are exempt from income tax. However, for certain types of scheme, as we have been discussing, this is the case only if the beneficiary is the employee, a member of the employee’s family or a member of their household. “Family” and “household” cover spouses, civil partners, parents, children and their spouses or civil partners, and dependants, domestic staff and the employee’s guests. The premiums paid by the employer for these schemes are treated as a taxable benefit in kind, if the eventual beneficiary is not covered by this definition, such as a charity or a friend. The changes made by this clause make the exemption fairer by extending it to cover premiums for policies where the beneficiary is any individual or a charity. The legislation will apply to premiums paid from 6 April 2019.

I will deal with amendments 14 and 15 together. Amendment 14 would require a review of the revenue implications of the provisions of the clause, to be reported to the House before this change can have effect. Amendment 15 would require a review of the effect on pension benefits of the provisions of the clause, to be reported to the House before this change can have effect. These amendments are unnecessary.

As with other tax measures, the Government have already published a tax information impact note for this measure. This shows that the changes are expected to have a negligible impact upon the Exchequer. Premiums paid by employers to almost all UK pension schemes and overseas pension schemes are already covered by separate tax exemptions, which apply regardless of who the beneficiary is. Therefore, the change introduced by the clause applies only to certain niche overseas pension schemes and employer-financed retirement benefit schemes.

The hon. Member for Bootle asked for specific examples of which schemes fell within the scope of this particular measure. I am afraid that we are unable to provide that information, because it depends what the terms and conditions state within each scheme.

In essence, this is a welcome change, but it affects a small number of schemes and a relatively small number of individuals. As a result, our assessment, supported by the Office for Budget Responsibility, is that the revenue implications are negligible. I think that answers the question raised by the hon. Gentleman on what the impact will be on the Exchequer and whether this has been taken into account. It certainly has been looked at and agreed upon by the Office for Budget Responsibility. The impact on pension benefits will therefore also be relatively minor. This change simply ensures that the benefits-in-kind rules apply in the same way across pension schemes and life assurance policies. I therefore urge him not to press his amendments.

Amendment 16 would require a statement of the House on discussions between the Government and the Charity Commission on this clause. HMRC does, of course, liaise with the Charity Commission and others, wherever appropriate, so such a statement would not be necessary. However, it might be helpful if I explain the position in relation to charities. The exemption will apply only where the beneficiary is recognised by HMRC as a charity for UK tax purposes. These will include charities registered with the Charity Commission in England and Wales, the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator and the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North asked whether I might write to the Committee with further information on discussions that may have been held, and I would be happy to do that. In the first instance, it might be helpful if she were to write to me, setting out exactly what she would wish me to respond to.

Not all charities need to be registered in England and Wales. Some are exempt or excepted from registration, but most charities will be recognised by HMRC in order to claim tax relief such as gift aid. Employers will need to check with the charity that it is either registered or recognised as a charity for UK tax purposes when it is named as a beneficiary.

I hope that explains the position and that the hon. Member for Bootle might consider withdrawing the amendment.

[Peter Dowd]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Tax treatment of social security income

[Peter Dowd]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 12, page 9, line 7, at end insert—

‘( ) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the revenue effects of the provisions in this section and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”

This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the revenue effects of Clause 12.

[The Chair]

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

[Peter Dowd]

I know people are going to be terribly disappointed that this is my last contribution today. Other colleagues must have an opportunity to have their say. The disappointment is palpable, but I must push on.

The clause deals with the tax treatment of social security income. Again, I refer to the explanatory note, which provides a helpful introduction to the clause:

“The Scottish government is introducing five new social security payments: young carer grant; best start grant; funeral expense assistance; discretionary housing payments; and carer’s allowance supplement.”

It goes on:

“The government is also confirming the tax treatment of another four social security benefits: the council tax reduction scheme, discretionary housing payments and the flexible support fund, overseen by the UK Government, and the discretionary support scheme, overseen by the Northern Ireland Executive.”

Furthermore:

“Social security benefits are administered by a number of different UK government departments and the devolved administrations. The tax treatment of social security benefits is legislated for within income tax legislation. The tax treatment of new benefits should be confirmed when each one is introduced.”

The note continues:

“The Scottish government’s fiscal framework underpins the powers over tax and welfare that are devolved to Scotland through the Scotland Act. This states that ‘any new benefits or discretionary payments introduced by the Scottish Government will not be deemed to be income for tax purposes, unless topping up a benefit which is deemed taxable such as Carer’s Allowance’.”

This, in part, relates to social security changes made by the Scottish Government, which is a matter for Scotland to decide. We also note that this ensures that some new social security payments are not subject to additional taxation, which is a sensible approach that will make the finances of many on the lowest incomes as simple as possible. We would, however, like to query the decision to make the carer’s allowance supplement taxable.

The equality impact assessment for the clause suggested that the carer’s allowance supplement will be confirmed as taxable. That is a supplementary payment to carer’s allowance, which is a taxable benefit paid by the UK Government. The majority of recipients of care allowances are women, so more women than men will receive the carer’s allowance supplement in Scotland. In effect, it looks as though the only additional social security payment being denied the tax exemption is the one that will primarily affect women. Perhaps the Minister will elaborate on why that is the case. It appears to stem from the fact that the UK carer’s allowance is itself taxable—a UK Government decision that is likely to have the very same gender impacts.

The Women’s Budget Group has demonstrated on numerous occasions that women are already disproportionately affected by the Government’s policies in relation to the years of austerity. Its research shows that 86% of the austerity burden was and is being borne by women. That is eight long years during which our mothers, sisters and daughters have borne the brunt of those cuts, and now here we are with yet another measure that will disproportionately affect women more than men. A member of the Women’s Budget Group, Dr Angela O’Hagan, helped put this into context when she said:

“Budget processes have increasingly become the conduit for discriminatory policies, such as the UK Government’s rape clause and the cumulative attacks on welfare income especially among poorer women and women of colour. It is essential that external voices such as UK Women’s Budget Group are engaged and heard, and that the Government’s budget processes are opened up to closer scrutiny for their impact on equalities groups and their potential to advance equality through more effective allocation of public finances and more equitable means of raising government revenue.”

I suggest that had the Government allowed more scrutiny of the clauses and sought consultation as per the normal procedure before they came to office, these issues might have been ironed out during the Bill’s development. Instead, these negative gender impacts are squirreled away in policy papers on particular and specific clauses after it is too late to do anything about them, with the right properly to amend already denied to the Opposition by the Government through their refusal to table an amendment of the law resolution.

I hope the Minister will explain why this discrepancy has been included in the Bill and make moves to rectify it immediately. Time and again, we have called for an equality impact assessment of the Budget to flag these matters up, and every time that has been denied by the Government, who appear to want to slip these inequalities through. We will continue to hold them to account on every single one.

The amendment also relates to the matter of the Government’s behaviour regarding consultation and would require a review of the revenue effects of the clause. In the policy paper on the clause, the Government list the Exchequer impact as negligible. We have heard that several times today, so will the Minister enlighten us as to what “negligible” means in cash terms? It is not necessarily going to be “negligible” on an individual basis for those affected by this proposal. It would be helpful to have a band of figures starting, presumably, at zero and going up the scale. We hope that a proper review of the revenue effects of this measure would be made available for the purposes of good practice alone. I continue to refer Members to the “Better Budgets” report helpfully provided by the Institute for Government and the Chartered Institute of Taxation. The report states that

“the Treasury and HMRC should publish the evidence base behind measures and the assumptions on which costings are based, and ensure that these are appropriately detailed.”

Clearly, that was not the case with this measure. I have already spoken to the Committee on this point, but it is essential that the Government begin to change their behaviour towards the scrutinising of legislation, especially when it places further burdens on women. These proposals have already taken their toll and will continue to do so, unless we stand up and do something about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

I start by addressing the specific points raised by the hon. Members for Aberdeen North and for Oxford East. On the explanatory notes and the value or otherwise of a specific reference to input from the Scottish Government, I will certainly be happy to look at that in the future. I assure the hon. Member for Aberdeen North that there were significant discussions on these measures between the Treasury and Scottish officials in the appropriate manner. On the technical point raised by the hon. Member for Oxford East around “the” scheme versus “a” scheme, the information I have is that the scheme came into force in April 2013. However, I will look into her specific question about whether the measures apply to “a” scheme or “the” scheme. I am afraid that I do not immediately have an answer to that, but I will get back to her as soon as I can.

Clause 12 clarifies and confirms the tax treatment of nine social security benefits. The income tax treatment of social security benefits is legislated for in part 10 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, which provides certainty about existing benefits and needs to be updated when new benefits are introduced. For example, the Scottish Government are introducing five new payments following the devolution of powers, including the young carer grant, the discretionary housing payment and the carer’s allowance supplement. Other payments covered by the clause have been in operation elsewhere in the UK for some time, such as the council tax reduction scheme and the flexible support fund, but are not yet covered clearly in legislation.

The changes made by clause 12 ensure that such payments are taxed appropriately, and that that is clear in legislation. The clause clarifies and confirms that such payments are exempt from tax, with one exception—the carer’s allowance supplement—which is taxable. That is in accordance with “The agreement between the Scottish Government and the UK Government on the Scottish Government’s fiscal framework”, which states:

“Any new benefits or discretionary payments introduced by the Scottish Government will not be deemed to be income for tax purposes, unless topping up a benefit which is deemed taxable such as Carer’s Allowance.”

Amendment 2 would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the revenue effects of the clause and lay a report of that review before the House within six months of the passing of the Bill. Such a review is unnecessary. The Government have already published a tax information and impact note for this measure, and our assessment, supported by the OBR, is that the Exchequer effects are negligible.

On the carer’s allowance supplement, which was introduced in Scotland in 2018, as a general rule benefits are taxable if they replace lost income. The carer’s allowance has therefore always been taxable. The vast majority of those receiving the supplement have income below the personal allowance and would therefore not be expected to pay any income tax. That is an important point in respect of the point made by the hon. Member for Bootle. I will not dwell on each payment covered by the clause, but I reiterate that eight of these payments are exempt from taxation. HMRC has not and will not collect any tax from these payments.

As the tax information and impact note sets out, the taxation of the carer’s allowance supplement is expected to have negligible Exchequer effects because, as I have said, the vast majority of those carers receiving the additional payment do not earn sufficient income to pay any income tax at all. However, any income tax receipts from that will of course go to the Scottish Government.

The Committee will also know that taxable social security income is aggregated and reported to HMRC through self-assessment after the end of the tax year. This is an important point in the context of the amendment. That income will not need to be reported until January 2020. A review would therefore be impractical only six months after the Bill’s passing. I therefore ask the Committee to reject the amendment. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Peter Dowd]

We will not push the amendment to a vote. However, I push the case to the Government that, while these amounts of money may be negligible to the Treasury or to HMRC, if the measure affects a particular woman who is already under the stresses and strains of helping a relative, it is important that we give them as much latitude as we possibly can. Whether we like it or not, this will be perceived as a continued attack on women who continue to be the biggest assistants to relatives—yet again, it is an attack on those people who are doing a caring role.

[Mel Stride]

Once again, divine inspiration has arrived and I can confirm that the CTR is a reference to multiple schemes—so it is “a” rather than “the”. The measure therefore covers all those schemes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Disposals by non-UK residents etc

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 23, in schedule 1, page 147, line 34, at end insert—

21A The Treasury must by regulations require that a list of persons not resident in the United Kingdom whose gains are brought into charge by the changes made to TCGA 1992 in this Schedule be published on a public register.”

This amendment would require a public register of those subject to capital gains tax as a result of the provisions in Part 1 of Schedule 1.

Amendment 24, in schedule 1, page 147, line 34, at end insert—

21A The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the revenue effects of the changes made to TCGA 1992 in this Schedule and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.”

This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the revenue effects of the changes to capital gains tax as a result of the provisions in Part 1 of Schedule 1.

Amendment 34, in schedule 1, page 147, line 34, at end insert—

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

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

Government amendment 1.

Amendment 29, in schedule 1, page 167, line 47, at end insert—

Part 2A

Review of effects on property prices

118A (1) The Commissioners must, within three months of the end of the tax year 2019-20, provide information to the Treasury on the basis of the exercise of their functions in relation to the changes made in this Schedule about the effects of the changes on the matters specified in sub-paragraph (2).

(2) Those matters are—

(a) residential property prices in the United Kingdom, and

(b) the proportion of residential property in the United Kingdom owned by persons not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the end of the tax year 2019-20, undertake a review of the information supplied in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons.”

This amendment would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effects of the changes in Schedule 1 on residential property prices and foreign ownership of residential property.

That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.

Finance (No. 3) Bill (Ninth sitting)

Peter Dowd Excerpts

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

[Sir Robert Syms]

I come back to my basic point that there are certain matters of principle that are good for parliamentary debate, and there are minor, technical matters, such as those dealing with the Inland Revenue. I am not sure that debating the latter would bring much to the sum of human happiness. I also make the point that, although the Conservative party does not enjoy a majority in the House of Commons, the Scottish National party does not enjoy a majority in the Scottish Parliament, so we are all sort of in the same boat.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about technical matters and grander principles. However, given that the Government have not allowed us to amend the law in any significant way, the Committee is left at this point poring over the detail—the grander principles are being brushed aside by the Government. We are unable to scrutinise the Bill at the grander level or at the specific level.

[Sir Robert Syms]

The hon. Member makes his own point. We have discussed Budgets and Finance Bill Committees before. The Bill has been on the Floor of the House and will go back there. There will be endless debates, and I am perfectly sure that he and his formidable Front-Bench team will be able to make their points when the Bill goes back to the House. Ultimately, the Government have taken a perfectly pragmatic view, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

It is lovely to see you in the chair again today, Ms Dorries. I will speak to clause 84 and our amendments which, as you described, also cover clause 85, which is a supplementary clause.

Clause 84 relates to a somewhat historic issue—the payment of advance corporation tax known as ACT. ACT was payable when companies distributed dividends to shareholders before main corporation taxes were due. These payments could then be offset in profit and loss calculations potentially to reduce the overall tax bill. ACT was abolished under Gordon Brown’s tenure as Chancellor in 1999 to prevent its abuse mitigating revenues to the Exchequer, and to encourage reinvestment rather than excessive dividend payments.

However, there are some legacy cases relating to ACT claims. The clauses are the result of a legal judgment from the Supreme Court test case that impacts those claims—that of Prudential Assurance Company Limited and HMRC on 25 July 2018. This case gave rise to a number of judgments in relation to ACT. I will not read it in full—

[Peter Dowd]

Oh!

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

On a point of order, Ms Dorries. I will be very quick; we are now due in another place for yet another round of Treasury stuff. I thank you and your co-Chair, Hansard, the Doorkeepers, our Whips, our Parliamentary Private Secretaries, my hon. Friend the Member for Poole, our officials—particularly Liam Mulroy and Calum Boyd in my office—and our Bill team at the Treasury. I also thank everybody on the Committee for having made this such a smooth and productive session.

[Peter Dowd]

Further to that point of order, Ms Dorries. I thank you and the House staff—the Committee Clerks, the Doorkeepers and Hansard—as well as everybody involved in consideration of the Bill, including my colleagues.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Peter Dowd Excerpts

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

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 5—Review of public health and poverty effects—

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the public health and poverty effects of the provisions of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) A review under this section must consider—

(a) the effects of the provisions of this Act on the levels of relative and absolute poverty in the UK,

(b) the effects of the provisions of this Act on life expectancy and healthy life expectancy in the UK, and

(c) the implications for the public finances of the public health effects of the provisions of this Act.’

[Peter Dowd]

I rise to speak to new clause 1 in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and other Members.

In opening for the Opposition today, I shall start with a few general comments on the Bill before moving on to my substantive remarks on child poverty and equality. First, I must mention the new schedule the Government have tabled, at this late stage, on intangible fixed assets. It is yet another example of the Government’s absolute contempt for parliamentary processes—a result of their desperation to cling to power. Although the Chancellor announced this proposal at the Budget, the introduction of this detailed schedule at this stage of the Bill guarantees that Members are denied the opportunity to scrutinise it properly. It circumvents the Public Bill Committee process, which was created to ensure that technical measures such as this one receive forensic and detailed analysis. This is no way for any Government to conduct legislation. With that in mind, perhaps the Minister could explain why this measure has been included at the final stage of this Bill, denying Members the opportunity to properly scrutinise it. Is it a deliberate decision to once again circumvent parliamentary process? Will he consider withdrawing the schedule and including it in the next Finance Bill later this year, ensuring that it receives the proper parliamentary scrutiny it actually warrants?

It appears that Ministers are hellbent on starting this new year in the same fashion that they ended the last—by treating Members of this House as a peripheral part of the law-making process, bypassing parliamentary processes and breaking long-established conventions. The vast majority of Members in this House are fed up to the back teeth with the Government’s attempts to avoid parliamentary scrutiny.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Given the heinousness of the charges that the shadow Minister has laid against Her Majesty’s Government, I presume that this is further grist to his party’s mill for a no-confidence vote. When will that be tabled and debated in this place?

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I don’t think he is taking it seriously.

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are here debating the Finance Bill and the Government’s dreadful performance in bringing legislation to the House for much-needed scrutiny. They seem to be incapable of doing that. They seem to be incapable of doing very much these days.

Has it not occurred to the Government that had they entered this place in a spirit of co-operation, they might not have suffered defeat after defeat on this legislation? This Finance Bill is the product of a Government on the run—a Tory party totally consumed by its Brexit civil war, unable and unwilling to posit even the feeblest domestic agenda here for fear of upsetting its nasty, hard-right faction. The Prime Minister’s speech about fighting burning injustices has turned to ash. Her claim that she would end austerity lies in tatters. She occupies our highest public office, and yet the public have no confidence in her—neither do many of her own Back Benchers, for that matter.

Meanwhile, the view is even worse from the Treasury. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that the Chancellor was gambling with the public finances at this Budget, and it seems that even before the Bill has left this place, he has already lost that bet. The Office for National Statistics recently blew a £12 billion hole in the Chancellor’s spreadsheets by returning student debt to the Government’s books.

So one has to wonder, what is the point of the Tory party—unable to deliver a competent Brexit deal, unable to secure our economic future, unable to meet its own fiscal rules, and unable to deliver a domestic policy programme? It is a party still reliant on the old dogmas of neoliberalism and austerity, unable to see the evidence of its failures. An example of this absurd neoliberal dogma came over the break when, as we heard today, the Transport Secretary awarded a ferry contract to a company with no ferries. If he is looking for expertise in this matter, perhaps I can invite him down to Merseyside, where we have been running ferries since 1330, very successfully—and they are publicly run, I have to say. I invite him to have a go on a ferry up the River Mersey and get the feel for how it works, basically. He will have diplomatic immunity and will not be thrown overboard—I can guarantee that as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Did my hon. Friend notice yesterday that the Government are beginning to backtrack on universal credit? Although they say they will introduce it for 10,000 people, in essence they are backtracking. He may also have noticed the announcement today by an independent organisation that we need to build something like 3 million social houses, not in the private sector, over a 10-year period. Does he agree that that should be looked at and done through council housing?

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend is right, and the reality is that we are not going to get it from the Conservative party—it is as simple as that. It seems incapable of doing anything that is in any way constructive for the social fabric of our country.

The Government now pick and choose whichever target provides cover for their devastating treatment of children across the UK, including—when it suits them—using the very targets that they themselves scrapped. That is why new clause 1 is so important. The Government can no longer be allowed to ignore the plight of millions of children across the country.

The statistics do not lie. They show quite clearly that, prior to the Conservative Government coming to power in 2010 with their Liberal Democrat partners, child poverty in the UK was falling. The new Social Metrics Commission, which draws on the widest possible set of poverty measures, states concretely that there are now half a million more children living in relative poverty than there were just five years ago. The whole country knows that austerity is to blame, and we all know who introduced austerity—it was the Government.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I completely agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Does he agree that the two-child cap, which will apply to all new universal credit claimants from 1 February this year, and other measures that the Government are pushing mean that up to an additional 3 million children will apparently go into poverty?

[Peter Dowd]

The hon. Lady is right. The Government appear to want to put misery upon misery on families and children.

Despite the claims from Conservative Members, austerity was not some necessity nobly chosen by the Government of the day, but a political and ideological choice—it is as simple as that. If it was the only option, why did the United States not embark on a similar venture? Why did the likes of Germany and France not undertake a similar level of spending cuts, or Japan, or, for that matter, Australia? [Interruption.] Conservative Members are chuntering, but those are the questions that we need answering.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

The shadow Minister referenced public spending in the United States of America. Is he seriously arguing that we should look to adopt its system of welfare and healthcare spending?

[Peter Dowd]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not saying that. He can twist his party’s policies if he wants, but he should not twist Labour’s policies.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

We should remind those on the Government Benches that the crash, if we want to call it that, actually started in America with the Lehman Brothers and that the Obama Administration pumped $80 billion into the motorcar industry. The rest is history, as we say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and backs up the point that I was making.

Those countries acknowledged a hard economic fact that appears to have stumped this Government: we cannot cut our way to growth. That has failed repeatedly, from its early use under US President Herbert Hoover, which turned the stock market crash into the great depression, to the International Monetary Fund programmes that have been imposed in developing countries and the economic and social devastation inflicted on Greece. This Government’s austerity agenda is yet another failure to add to that list. They have missed every economic target they have set, and it is the poorest in society who have paid the price.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

It is interesting to listen to my hon. Friend’s informed explanation of how austerity has not worked across history. Does he agree that up until the 2010 general election, because of the fiscal stimulus put in place by the Chancellor Alistair Darling and the Prime Minister Gordon Brown, those first two quarters were successive periods of growth, and the economy fell off a cliff because of the austerity introduced by the Conservative party?

[Peter Dowd]

My hon. Friend is right. The economy thereafter, with the help of the Liberal Democrats, started to go down the pan. To this day, we have not recovered, and the Government’s own figures indicate that this will go on for many more years. We will have more of the same, and it is not working. When will they learn the lesson? They seem to be incapable. Even the IMF recognises the failure of austerity and has called for increased public spending to offset the negative economic effects of Brexit.

[Simon Hoare]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for this fascinating tour de force on the period since 2010. If the Labour party in government was doing so fantastically well, growth was going so well and its economic management was prized highly by the electorate, why did it lose the general election in 2010 and then in 2015? If all was going so well, why did it lose?

[Peter Dowd]

I am sure the House would be delighted to hear my psephological analysis of the general election, but we are talking about the Finance Bill. You are very generous, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I do not think even you would be sufficiently generous as to hear my psephological comments.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

It gives me great pleasure to agree with the hon. Gentleman. He was doing very well on new clause 1.

[Peter Dowd]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The UN special rapporteur has concluded that the rising level of child poverty is a result of political choices, underpinned by the Government’s callous austerity agenda. I will draw my comments to a conclusion because I know that lots of Members want to comment on how dreadful the Government are, how they try to stitch up Committees, how they do not allow us to have proper debates and how—for the first time since Winston Churchill introduced the notion—they have circumvented the amendment of the law motion. They talk about bringing back control to the House of Commons, but they are bringing back control to about two or three people on the Front Bench, and that does not include the Treasury Ministers.

The Finance Bill before us is yet another Bill of broken promises. It offers further tax reliefs for the rich and for multinational corporations, and it prolongs austerity for yet another year, condemning many families and many children to abject poverty. Labour’s new clause 1 would require the Government finally to assess the impact of their economic policies on the most vulnerable in our society. It would require the Government to face up to their responsibility to come and explain to this House why they are not yet changing their economic policies, despite the obvious evidence that they are doing dreadful—I repeat, dreadful—damage to this country and to our communities.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak at this stage of our proceedings. I am extraordinarily concerned about new clause 1, because it would delay the implementation of clause 5, which is a key part of the Bill because it sets the very level at which people in this country start to pay tax. If we are to address the issues that affect those in our country on the lowest incomes, the best way to help them will to be allow them to keep more of their money in their pockets.

That is why a key part of this Government’s economic strategy has been to make sure, year after year, that those on the lowest incomes are able to keep more of what they earn and to help themselves to build their way out of poverty. That means that 34 million people in this country are paying less tax than previously, and many millions of people have been taken out of tax altogether. This was the No. 1 recommendation of the tax reform commission, which I worked on back in 2006, and I am absolutely delighted that it was among the first steps taken first by the coalition Government, then by the 2015 Government and now by the 2017 Government. This Finance Bill means that raising the level before anyone pays tax to £12,500 is being introduced faster than we ever thought possible.

--- Later in debate ---

I was very concerned by what the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) said about precedents, somehow suggesting that such a clause should not be in the Bill. I have had a quick look back at previous Finance Bills, and it is absolutely normal to have a clause that looks like clause 5, which sets out the level at which the Exchequer should start taking tax. If such a provision is not in the Finance Bill, where should it be? Of course it should be in the Finance Bill—it is an absolutely fundamental element of it.

[Peter Dowd]

The hon. Lady has got two facts wrong. First, we did not vote against these proposals, as she suggested. Secondly, I was actually talking about the new schedule, not clause 5. If she is going to attack us, she should get her facts right, for goodness’ sake.

[Vicky Ford]

Perhaps this should be better drafted on the amendment paper, because the Opposition’s explanatory statement clearly refers to the “impact of clause 5”.

I agree that one should always take impacts into consideration, but I strongly believe that the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman of needing to address poverty is best addressed by allowing this Bill to go forward today, especially the elements that involve raising the level at which people start to pay tax, so that they can keep more money in their own pockets. That is fundamental to building a fairer economy, to having a lower gap between those on the highest incomes and those on the lowest incomes, and to encouraging more people in this country to take up the work opportunities available to them under this Conservative Government, with the continuing growth of the economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

I will come to the very issue that the hon. Gentleman rightly raises.

Clause 5 will benefit households across the UK. Due to the information collected by HMRC through tax returns, we have various pieces of information on geographical distribution, as sought under new clause 1(2)(d). That is an important point, because much of the information being requested is actually already available.

In addition, the distributional analysis published by the Treasury already sets out the impact of tax changes on households with different levels of income. To be completely clear, the analysis shows how the living standards of households in each tenth of the income distribution will be affected by the decisions the Chancellor and Prime Minister have taken since they took office in 2016. Not only does the analysis meet the intention of new clause 5(2)(a) regarding the effects of the Government’s tax changes on different households, it actually goes beyond that by including changes to welfare and spending on public services, and by considering changes in addition to those announced at each fiscal event since the autumn statement in 2016.

There is, as I suggested at the outset of my remarks, much that we can agree on across the House. Child poverty, public health, life expectancy and inequality are among the greatest issues of our age. We have got on with the job. Absolute poverty rates are at record lows. One million fewer people are in poverty now than under Labour. I say to the hon. Member for Gedling that 1 million is indeed a number, but for every one of those million, their lives have been enhanced. That includes 300,000 fewer children in poverty than under Labour. As we know, the best route out of poverty is through work. There are 3 million more people in work now than in 2010, with 637,000 fewer children in workless households. That is a record of which we should be proud. I urge the House to reject the new clauses.

[Peter Dowd]

If I may rephrase St Augustine, who said “O Lord, make me chaste, but not yet,” what we have here is a Government saying, “O Lord, make me charitable and compassionate, but not just now. Let’s do it in the future.” It comes to something when the British Government, with an expenditure of approximately £840 billion a year, say that it will be difficult to get statistics, either qualitative or quantitative, from which they can make policy. That is how it seems to me, but I tell you what: every day when I am in my constituency I see people who are homeless. What have the Government done about that? Nothing. I see food banks opening up all the time. What are the Government doing about that? Absolutely nothing. What are the Government doing about the 24% of homeless people who are from the LGBT community? Absolutely nothing. And then we heard the dross coming out—that is what it is, dross—about intergenerational worklessness. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation—through evidence, through statistics, through analysis—found that that was not a significant factor in homelessness. So we hear all this talk about charity, compassion and working together, but I am afraid it does not wash when it comes from the mouths of Tories.

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