Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 8th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have been asking the Minister for many months now about the impact of the 13th directive and the ability of other countries, once we are outside the EU, to vary their own VAT requirements. How can he be so confident that by next January he will be able to implement a system that looks at import and export tariffs, given that it will still be dependent on all 27 countries determining their VAT relationship with us? Does he have an agreement with them for that deadline?

[Mel Stride]

The 13th directive—as the hon. Lady will know, is principally used by countries and businesses outside the EU for the purposes of reclaiming VAT within the UK—will not necessarily be an issue, depending on where the negotiation between us and the EU lands. It is quite possible—indeed, the Bill facilitates this—that continued engagement with IT platforms will allow an easy and effective method of making the kind of reclaims to which the directive relates. She raises the question of whether we have to be ready by next January. If we have an implementation period, for example, we might have considerably longer to bring the process into effect.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th December 2017 Commons Chamber

I am immensely proud of Labour’s manifesto commitment to gender audit all our policies and legislate for their impact on women before their implementation. It is shameful that we have to keep challenging the Government to do their legal duty and ensure that their policies are not disproportionately impacting one particular group. There is virtually no one on the Tory Benches at the moment—and not one woman—so I have to question whether the Government are serious about equality. But if they are serious about equality, and economic equality in particular, they must take action. The simplest way for them to do that would be to support new clauses 6 and 7.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to make my case to the five Conservative MPs on the Government Benches today. Inequality is an incredibly expensive business for everyone. I am pleased to see five fellow feminists sitting among the many of us on these Benches—

[Mel Stride]

Eight.

[Stella Creasy]

Goodness! The Minister says eight, but I can assure him that we have a good many more than eight feminists in total on this side of the House if he would ever like to test us. Our policies and our manifesto certainly speak to that fact.

The case that I want to make to the five men on the Tory Benches, given that gender inequality and equality impact assessments can sometimes be seen as special-interest issues, is that everything we are doing today is in everyone’s interest. Inequality costs us all dear. It holds everybody back in our society. Indeed, feminism is not about women; it is about the fact that power is unequally balanced in society so that 51% of those in our communities miss out on achieving their potential. That is what is behind new clauses 6 and 7. Good data help to drive good decisions. It is also good for Governments to follow their own policies. We have a public sector equality duty in this country, but the fact that the Government are not following it themselves makes it much harder for them to force other people to do so. Ultimately, we are here today to make the case that Britain will be better when we know more about the conditions that we face and about what impact policies are having.

Let me start with that cold, hard economic argument, because I am sure that the Minister, who once proclaimed his feminist credentials, already knows this, but I am not sure whether it has yet been put on the record. Bridging the gender gap would generate £150 billion in GDP by 2025. The economy has been struggling with a productivity problem for decades, and there is nothing stronger or faster that we could do to address that than to ensure that everybody in our society is able to realise their potential, but we should do more to help women in particular. We need to tackle the barriers and the discrimination they face that means they do not have that level playing field. Indeed, studies show the strong correlation between diversity and economic growth, so those who think that this is special pleading do not understand the maths behind the case Labour is making today. I would argue that the reason why they do not understand the maths is that we do not do the calculations, which is why it is so important to get the data.

Data is a good thing. It leads to difficult conversations. It makes us ask why, after the Equal Pay Act was passed in 1970, we still do not have equal pay in this country. I was born after that Act came into effect, but if the current policy continues, I will be dead before we have parity. That harms us all, because the 14% pay gap between men and women is not stagnating, but growing. There will be women in our constituencies who are missing out on equal pay because we are not acting as a country. Having this kind of data helps us to ask why that is and whether Government policy is helping to minimise the gap or exacerbate it.

This is not just about gender. The gap is much worse for women from ethic minority communities. The pay gap is 26% for Pakistani and Bangladeshi women and 24% for black African women. This is also not just about ethnicity, because the same applies for disability and age. Only 36% of women in the constituencies of the Conservative male Members here will be getting their full state pension. When those women come to see those Members about the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, they are coming because they have been living with poverty for decades. They are asking for help to make things right, because they do not want to be dependent on the state. They want a level playing field, but historical inequality in our society has held them back, and it is holding us back now. Having the data helps us to understand where that is happening and why. It would show us whether Government policies—individual Budgets—are going to make it easier to tackle that inequality, so that fewer women will come to constituency surgeries asking for a referral to a food bank, or whether they will make things worse.

If the Government want to tackle inequality, they need to know that data also tells us that this Budget, and the Budgets of previous years, are causing more problems. I do not doubt the sincerity of the five Conservative Members here or that they do want to tackle inequality in our society, but when I look at this Budget I do doubt whether they are going to be able to do that. This Budget will hit women 10 times as hard as it will hit men—13 times for women from an ethnic minority background. Going back to the equal pay issue, 43% of people in society do not earn enough to benefit from raising the personal income tax threshold, and 66% are women. We have unequal pay in our society, so 73% of the people who will benefit from changing the higher rate threshold will be male. Having the data and then looking at what is being done with tax and benefit policies will help us to understand just how much further this Budget is moving the goalposts for women and ethnic minorities. This applies to other policies, too. Corporation tax changes disproportionately benefit men, because we still do not have parity in the boardroom, in enterprise or in the number of women shareholders.

The lack of data also leads to bad decision making. As my colleagues have already set out, this Government have not done any equality impact assessments to understand just how far the goalposts are moving in getting to this House’s shared aim of an equal society. Tax information and information notes dismiss the issue and do not help Ministers to make good decisions. I am sure that the Minister, with his feminist soul, wants to make good decisions, but those assessments claim that there is little or no impact. Indeed, we do not even have TINs for all the policies that we know have a differential impact such as excise duty rates or fuel duty giveaways, because we live in an unequal society.

The lack of data also means that Ministers simply cannot come to the Dispatch Box and tell us that any concerns we may have about the differential impact of individual tax and benefit changes can be offset by the impact of other policies. If we do not know the impact of one policy, how can it be said that that can be offset by another? Even if we are concerned that men have received a windfall from Budgets for several years, it is simply not good enough for Ministers to try to tell us that women are being compensated through public services, because they cannot provide the analysis to show us that either case is true. Indeed, when we look at the impact of public service cuts—surprise, surprise—women, ethnic minorities and the disabled tend to be disproportionately hit again.

As I said at the start, it is also a matter of following our own laws. The public sector equality duty came into force in this country in 2011. It is a legal requirement, and it has driven some of these difficult conversations, whether in the Bank of England or in the BBC. It helps us to challenge everyone to do more to unlock the potential of every member of our society by reducing barriers and breaking down the discrimination that means, 40-plus years on, we still do not have equal pay.

If the Government themselves are not upholding their duties, what hope do we have in asking other organisations to do so? It is important to recognise that the legal duty is not passive. It is a duty not just to manage inequality but to do something about it. It is a duty to know the numbers before we make a decision so that we do not make things worse, as this Budget clearly does, and it is an ongoing duty that cannot be delegated. Ministers cannot leave it to a civil servant in the back office; they have to take direct responsibility. Crucially, it is a duty that, once a problem has been identified, the Government have to act, and not having the resources is no excuse for not acting.

The arguments Ministers are making against calculating the figures are not just about the practicalities, but they are completely surmountable. As the Women’s Budget Group, the Fawcett Society and the Institute for Fiscal Studies have shown, it is perfectly possible to make these calculations, and it is worth doing because it would help the Government to make better decisions. That it is possible to do it both for individuals and for households is important because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) said, single parents, who tend to be women, are disproportionately hit by these changes. Even if the Minister were to quibble about calculating the figures across households, we could certainly see the impact we are having on some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

The reason why we have called it “lady data” is to try to help Ministers understand what they are missing and why it matters, but in truth this is everyone’s data. Getting this right and having that information would help us to make better decisions and would help us to understand why it will take us 100 years from today to have parity, so that women who are still struggling with unequal pay—including women in the communities of the Members to whom I have referred—can have some confidence that they may still live to see that wonderful day when everyone in this society is treated equally and so that people from ethnic minority backgrounds and disabled people living in poverty, and a poverty that is getting worse, can have some confidence that the Government are not ignoring them but understand where the challenges are and are considering a Budget that will do something about it.

Frankly, when we see the analyses that are being done, we know why the Government oppose new clauses 6 and 7. They do not want to do the maths because the figures tell the ugly truth about the inequality we have in Britain and its stubborn supporters, who unfortunately sit on the Government Benches. Jane Addams said:

“Social advance depends as much upon the process through which it is secured as upon the result itself.”

We cannot take the journey to a more prosperous, more successful and more egalitarian Britain if we do not know the direction of travel. The numbers will give us the direction of travel, but it is the political will that will give us the way forward.

Ministers should not dismiss this case as special pleading but should look at the economic argument for why tackling gender inequality matters and vote accordingly today to put Britain on a better path, because everyone will be richer for it.

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), Labour's shadow Minister for Women and Equalities, said, new clause 6 would require the Chancellor to carry out and publish a review of the Bill’s effect on equality. In short, it touches on the fundamental difference between the Labour party and this failing Government, whose policies work for only the richest few. New clause 6 seeks to shed light on the truth of who benefits from Government choices and who does not.

In order to change society, we must understand society; and in order to have a fully functioning democracy, we need transparency. People in my constituency deserve to know what is going on, not least because this Government are failing the country on so many levels that it is hard to know where to start.

New clause 6 refers to equality in relation to

“households at different levels of income”.

Real pay has fallen and is now lower than it was in 2010. Too many jobs that have been created are insecure and entrench poverty through low pay. These employment models fuel inequality, and certain parts of the country, particularly in my north-east region and my constituency, have a disproportionate number of workers on these contracts, where there has been a long-term move towards casualisation. This poverty is not just about worklessness; 60% of people in poverty live in a UK household where someone is in work. Many professionals have joined the queues at food banks, where, nationally, 1.4 million emergency food parcels were handed out last year—that has to be a perfect symbol of a failed state, does it not?—yet the Government just don’t get it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bim Afolami]

Whether it is in respect of the Bill, the new clause or what we are discussing now, the important thing is that it is of course the Government’s intention to create more better-paying jobs. That is what the Treasury team and everybody across Government strive to do every single day. That is not to say that every single person in this country is currently at the level of prosperity we would like, but that is the aim of all the activity that is coming out of the Bill and out of the Treasury.

[Stella Creasy]

If that is the aim, what data are the Government collecting to be sure that they are achieving it and to find out whether there are any variations? That is what we are talking about. The issue is not the policy, but whether it is having an impact and whether we can understand that impact. Does the hon. Gentleman understand that?

[Bim Afolami]

I do indeed understand that. There is currently so much data, much of which has already been talked about by Opposition Members, on regional disparities, and on disparities of race and age, and between urban and rural areas. There is so much data, so Government policy must aim to bear it all in mind, which is what Ministers do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bim Afolami]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. It is not celebrating low pay to say that people who are currently earning lower amounts should take home more of their money. That is not a celebration; it is about making their lives, every day and every week, that bit easier. It is worth saying that taking the lowest paid people out of tax and raising the national living wage is having significant benefits for many of the people—

[Stella Creasy]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. I think he may have missed one of the points that we are making. For example, when the Government raise the tax threshold, 66% of the people who do not benefit—because they do not earn enough—are women. Seventy three per cent. of the people who benefit from a rise in the higher income rate threshold are men. What he is talking about and what we are talking about are two different things. We are talking about the differential impact of policy, and asking the Government to do the sums that are currently being done in the charitable sector, so that we can make better policy. Surely he wants those sorts of policies to have an equal benefit, but at the moment they do not, because we do not have equal pay.

[Bim Afolami]

I believe that all policy in this area, or, frankly, in any area, should be set to make sure that we are trying to generate as innovative, dynamic and successful an economy as possible. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) mentioned cutting corporation tax in her speech. She thought that that effectively benefited more men than women because men are more likely to be shareholders than women. The way we should deal with that, in my view, is to encourage more women to be entrepreneurs. We should work to make sure that women have access to being shareholders and that women have more ability to reap the benefits of that—

[Bim Afolami]

If I may, I would like to make a bit of progress.

As the evidence has shown, cutting corporation tax increases, rather than decreases, the tax take going to the Exchequer. If that shows this country to be a better and more dynamic place in which to set up and start a business, that will benefit all people in this country. That is the approach that the Government should take. If we want to improve the performance of the British economy and if there happen to be more men than women who are shareholders, it is no answer to say that we should therefore not take action to improve the activity of the British economy.

[Stella Creasy]

I have a very simple question for the hon. Gentleman, although I appreciate that he is getting some assistance from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng): can he produce the data to prove that men and women will benefit equally from the changes to corporation tax?

[Bim Afolami]

I do not have the data now to be able to respond to the hon. Lady. What I do know is that Conservative Members will never take lectures from the Labour party; we have our second female Prime Minister, the gender pay gap is the lowest on record, and this Government have done more for childcare and support for families than the Labour Government ever did. The idea that this Government should take lectures on this issue from Labour Members is disgraceful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim McMahon]

That is a fair point.

[Stella Creasy]

Obviously, having had two women Prime Ministers, that is quite enough women earning a serious level of income—the 33 million other women in this country do not deserve equal care and attention. This data would help us to find out just how much inequality there is and what we could do about it. Does my hon. Friend agree that facts should override fiction?

[Jim McMahon]

I think that where the hon. Gentleman was trying to get to—I will be generous—was that these things are symbolic and that symbolism in politics is quite important. However, to me, it is more symbolic that 46% of women have to skip a meal so that their children can eat. It is quite symbolic that women continue to be underpaid compared with men, and it is symbolic that the decisions the Government are taking disproportionately affect women on low incomes—the people who are trying to keep households together and who are raising the next generation of young people, who, because of this Government, will not have better life chances than the generation that went before them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Whether Members on either side of the House agree with the policies, having good data to enable us to understand their impact helps us to make or dispute an argument. I am struggling to understand why any MP would be against having the facts about the impact of policy, which is all that the new clauses will do. If we had that information, Government Members could confidently tell us what great proposals they are making to improve the country’s prosperity, rather than using anecdotes—or two women.

[Jim McMahon]

I believe it comes down to priorities. If the Government were determined to do something about this, having the evidence base would be of great benefit to them. They do not want to do anything about it, so the evidence base is a hindrance because the Opposition can use it to attack the Government about the fact that progress just is not being made. That is the real reason why the Government are not making progress, and why they are determined not to support the new clauses. It would be far better for the country if the Government were to step up, to be honest and to recognise that the country has some really ingrained challenges that we need to face. Understanding the scale of the challenge from day one is important in making sure that we get into a better position.

My challenge is this: why not? If the Government believe that they are doing the right thing, and that by virtue of their second female Prime Minister they are the party of gender equality and the champions of all that is equal, now is the time to prove it. Members have two choices: they can go through one or other of the voting Lobbies. Perhaps they have a third choice, which is to stay away completely. They can get behind the new clauses and support our request for the data set, which will inform decisions; they can shirk responsibility entirely and stay away from both voting Lobbies; or they can keep their heads down and maintain their own position on the Government Benches, and vote against new clause 6 because it happens to have come from the Opposition. I would say that that is not putting the interests of the country first.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

It applies to a large number of people and there is the national minimum wage as well. My point is that the 4.4% increase in April will be well above inflation, and will disproportionately assist women and those from ethnic minority communities.

[Stella Creasy]

I thank the Minister for giving way and I am listening to the case he is making. If he is so confident that the Government’s policies promote equality, why is he against having an independent Office for Budget Responsibility equality impact assessment to tell us all the good news?

[Mel Stride]

I ask the hon. Lady to be a little bit patient, because I am coming to those very points shortly.

On assessments, we are required, under the Equality Act 2010, to take due regard of protected characteristics, but it is not just for that reason that we do so. It is not just for that reason that I and my fellow Ministers took those issues into account at every stage; it is because we believe it is the right thing to do and we wish so to do.

To come to the hon. Lady’s intervention, a number of reports are already out there. We have heard about tax information and impact notes. I do not think the Opposition should dismiss them. They did not mention the distributional analysis the Treasury provides and publishes at the time of the Budget, or the public expenditure statistical analysis, which looks at how expenditure affects different protected characteristics and runs to hundreds of pages in length. What the Opposition are calling for is fundamentally impractical. That is the heart of the matter and the answer to the hon. Lady’s question. Such analyses almost invariably focus on the static situation. They focus on the effect of tax and income changes on individuals without considering the behavioural changes they induce and the implications of changes in the wider economy, such as the level of employment. They are selective and tend to avoid focusing on those who benefit from public services or are affected by taxation. For example, the provision of childcare, social care and health services is normally exempt from such analyses.

The final point, which has been raised already and which the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) indeed recognised, is that where an individual’s income changes, that individual will almost invariably live within a household with other individuals. She said that the personal allowance increase for taxation disproportionately benefited men, but of course men often live in households with women, and income is distributed across the household. The same is true, of course, where a woman benefits and brings income into a household in which men are also present.

[Stella Creasy]

It is extraordinary that the Minister does not understand the concept of doing both individual and household analyses, or indeed behavioural alongside static analyses. There are many different ways the Government could be doing equality impact assessments. The problem is that they are not doing any.

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady is right: there are many ways it can be done, and the Government are indeed doing it in many ways. She need not only look to me for the observations I have made; the IFS has recognised my very point about household income. We will, however, continue to look at how we provide information and assess policies, and we will work with the ONS, as the Chancellor set out in the recent Budget.

In conclusion, the Government have a vision for a society that is equal, not in terms of levelling people down, but in terms of giving people the opportunity to go up. In yesterday’s debate on the Bill, the Labour party chose to vote against a measure to encourage young people to get a foot on the housing ladder. That is not acceptable, and that is an example of what we will do to promote equality of wealth and opportunity at every turn. I urge the Committee to reject new clauses 6 and 7.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 11th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I am afraid I have to dissent from that view. The simple fact is that the International Monetary Fund has identified the tax gap measure as one of the most robust measures of its kind in the world. At 6%, our gap is among the lowest in the world, and it is the lowest we have had in our history since we have been measuring the tax gap. If we had the same tax gap today as we had under the previous Labour Government, we would be out of pocket to the tune of £12.5 billion a year—enough to fund every policeman and policewoman in England and Wales.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

On the subject of tax avoidance, the Minister will know of my support for the Government’s willingness to close the tax loophole on the sales of commercial property by overseas companies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) said, the Paradise papers show some of the ways in which tax is being avoided, including through holding companies in Luxembourg. When I asked the Minister about that before, he did not seem to know about the Luxembourg treaty and how it could affect this policy. What are his plans to address the problems created by the Luxembourg treaty, which could see us losing out on £5.5 billion a year of the tax collected through his changes?

[Mel Stride]

As the hon. Lady will know, a number of the measures coming out of the OECD’s base erosion and profit shifting project, which we have been in the vanguard of—including common reporting standards and access by our tax authorities to a variety of information in real time in overseas tax jurisdictions—are essential to bearing down on exactly the issues that she mentions. There are further measures in the Bill to deal with those who place their moneys in trusts, typically those coming under our non-dom reforms. By abolishing permanent non-dom status, which Labour failed to do in its 13 years in office, we have made sure that when individuals have assets that are protected while in trusts, those moneys fall due to tax in our country as soon as they are brought out of those trusts, even if people cycle them through third parties and other approaches. That means that we are securing more than £12 billion a year more for our public services than would have been the case had the tax gap remained at its peak of nearly 8%, which it reached under Labour.

The autumn Budget continued that work with a package of measures forecast to raise £4.8 billion by 2022-23, some of which are included in the Bill. It is important to note that the provisions in the Bill form part of a broader anti-avoidance and evasion agenda dating back to 2010. Since then, the Government have worked tirelessly and carefully to introduce an ambitious raft of anti-avoidance and evasion legislation. That commitment is borne out again in this Finance Bill, which implements several measures, including provisions cracking down on online VAT evasion to make online marketplaces more responsible for the unpaid VAT of their sellers; closing loopholes in the anti-avoidance legislation on offshore trusts, as I mentioned; tackling disguised remuneration schemes used by close companies; preventing companies from claiming unfair tax relief on their intellectual property; ensuring that companies are not able to claim relief for losses on the disposal of shares that do not reflect losses incurred by the wider group; closing a loophole in the double taxation relief rules for companies; and tackling waste crime by extending landfill tax to illegal waste sites. Those measures will help to raise vital revenue and ensure that individuals and corporations all pay their fair share.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack), because I am going to enjoy setting out for him why I believe he is mistaken in considering this Finance Bill to be the best that we can do for this country. I hope he was here to hear the remarks of my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), who set out some strong ideas about alternative ways to manage the public finances, and the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), a fellow member of the Co-operative party, who set out how the Co-operative’s approach to public finances is different.

I was struck by what the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway and several other Government Members said about their pride in how light and narrow the Bill is. Look at the country’s economic challenges; it sums up the Government perfectly that they should boast about how little they have to offer to tackle those challenges. They admit that this country has a productivity challenge—a long-overdue admission—but they have so little to offer to address it. They seem pleased to tell us that they are peaking their borrowing, rather than meeting the commitments made in 2010, when we all sat here and listened to the previous Chancellor tell us that austerity was the only way forward. Well, what a myth that has turned out to be. The Government are presiding over stagnating wages, meaning that my constituents will be lucky to see a pay rise within the next 10 years. Decades of austerity mean that we are a nation up to our eyeballs in personal debt—not by accident, but through this Government’s choices. We have not even begun to talk about the black hole of Brexit that is sucking both time and money from our Exchequer.

A light Finance Bill is not something to be proud of; it is indicative of a Government who are not serving the British public. The Government try to tell us that they are doing something about the massive housing crisis, but it is clear that their stamp duty proposals will simply push up house prices and do little for our constituents who have no savings and cannot get a deposit together to even begin to consider buying a property and paying stamp duty. The Bill will do nothing about the crisis in our private rented sector that is the cause of so much personal debt. People in our communities are now putting their mortgage or their rent on their credit cards in a desperate attempt to keep a roof above their head this Christmas.

People have the spectre of universal credit hovering over them, sucking out their time and energy as they try to make ends meet, because there is just too much month at the end of their money. We have not even begun to talk about the impact of the cuts on our public sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West ably pointed out the lack of police on our streets; we will lose 3,000 in London alone due to this Budget. Teachers are having to buy resources for their pupils. People need us to manage the public finances properly, which is what this Bill would do if it was meatier contribution to Britain’s future, but it is not.

I know what Government Members will say to Opposition Members: “Where would you find the money?”. I want to answer that question, say what this Bill could have done for the British public, and set out why the Government need to move from policy-based evidence making to evidence-based policy making by using impact assessments. These assessments are not necessarily popular, as we have seen from the Brexit Secretary, but they are absolutely the way forward when it comes to understanding what could be done for this country.

Let me turn first to one of the places where we could be saving money as a society. I know that Members on both sides of the House are worried about the private finance initiative, and all of us have seen its impact on the public finances. Governments of all colours have used private finance contracts; indeed, they continue to be used through private finance 2 schemes. We know that £1 billion of the money that should be going into our NHS will be leeched out in profits by private finance companies. That money could have built hospitals several times over, and could certainly deal with the crisis in NHS recruitment and the lack of resources in healthcare. I have called on the Government to learn the lessons of the Paradise papers and introduce a moratorium on public sector contracts going to such companies until we are clear about where their tax liabilities lie. However, I am disappointed that, yet again, Ministers have missed that opportunity.

As Ministers have pointed out, we will only get one such Bill a year in future through which to tackle how these companies operate. A small number of companies are leeching so much money out of our public services through the high costs of private finance contracts, and their high rates of returns and interest rates. Government Members can look at them as hire purchase agreements for the public sector. The Bill could have been the opportunity to set a clear red line for those companies, and to tell them that, instead of continuing to rip off our schools and our hospitals, we want them to come to the table to renegotiate contracts. The Bill could have been the opportunity to set up that moratorium, or to use the banking levy as a model for a windfall tax on such companies—a tax that could claim back the excessive profits that they are clearly making from the public sector. This is money that could have properly funded our police or gone towards ensuring that we pay our public sector workers properly, but we will all end up paying for that omission from this Bill. With the PF2 contracts coming online, it is clear that the Government have not learned the lessons about the cost of public sector borrowing that would have informed the Bill.

This Bill is being considered in the context of the Government having agreed to close the tax loophole whereby overseas-based companies sold UK commercial property without having to pay capital gains tax—what we called the magic money tree—but it has sadly become apparent since the Budget that the Government have not got to grips with the loophole. They think that they are going to raise only half a billion pounds, but it is clear, given the sums involved in commercial property sales in the UK, that we could be looking at £5 billion or £6 billion.

With this Bill, the Government could have learned the lessons of the Paradise papers, particularly as regards the loophole for companies that register properties in Luxembourg, because the Luxembourg treaties will allow those companies to avoid capital gains tax. I have repeatedly raised that with Ministers, because we know that our public sector desperately needs the £5.5 billion extra a year that properly closing the tax loophole could represent, yet Ministers seem not to care. They tell me that the Government’s policy is that

“all double taxation treaties should permit gains on the direct and indirect disposal of UK immovable property to be taxed in the UK.”

However, from their consultation document, I can see that they recognise that there is a loophole within their loophole. Paragraph 4.36 admits that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs understands that there is a problem if the properties are registered in Luxembourg. The Bill could have been the opportunity to address that and to state, “When we say we are going to close a tax loophole, we close it properly.” We know that £5.5 billion could make such a difference—but it will not. That is indicative of a Government who do not seem to do their homework.

That brings me on to why impact assessments matter so much, and why so many Members from Labour and other parties have been speaking about their importance, particularly when it comes to gender. One of the Minister’s colleagues actually suggested to me that the debate about gender impact assessments was a bit like the debate around foxhunting. Perhaps he confused fair game with the fairer sex; I am not quite sure. As a colloquialism, we have been calling this the lady data campaign, because it is about what happens when we start to identify the impact of policies on particular people.

There will be some, particularly on social media, who will roll their eyes at yet another one of those feminists getting up to bang on about women and all the special treatment they want. Let me be very clear: the point about lady data is a cold, hard economic argument. Bridging the UK gender pay gap has the potential to create an extra £150 billion a year in GDP by 2025, which is a 5% to 8% increase in GDP for all our regions. This should be a no-brainer for all concerned, but to be able to do that, we need better to understand where inequality lies in our society, and where individual policies help or hinder us in tackling it.

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

I support any measure to try to close the gap in gender equality of income. Does the hon. Lady welcome the moves made by this Government to introduce gender pay gap reporting, and to make it a legal obligation for all companies with more than 250 employees by April 2018?

[Stella Creasy]

I am so glad a new Member has raised one of the legacies of having an amazing feminist MP like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) in Government, fighting for gender pay gap reporting in the Equality Act 2010. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) nodding, because it is wonderful to see the feminist soul of so many Government Members coming through. I hope we can tempt them to support these measures.

The reality is that if the Government do not measure something, they cannot be held to account on what they are doing about it. That is the challenge we have. Good data keeps Governments honest and on track. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not suggesting that inequality in British society is about one single issue, or indeed about one single group. It is about understanding where inequality lies and where individual and collective policies will make a difference. That is why it matters. We do not live in an equal society, so particular policy measures, such as those that this Finance Bill introduces, will have a differential impact.

We might have the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Equality Act, but equal pay is stagnating in Britain. Indeed, the figures for the past couple of years suggest that the gap is widening, not narrowing—crucially, among not just older women, but younger women. Among black and ethnic minority women, the gap is 26% for Pakistani and Bangladeshi women, and 24% for black African women. Women are twice as likely as men to receive the lowest pay. Only 36% of older women receive the full state pension. Therefore any finance measure that affects the tax and benefits situation in our country will have a differential impact.

Thankfully, organisations such as the Women’s Budget Group, the Fawcett Society, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Runnymede Trust have done what this Government have failed to do and started to identify the impact, so that we can understand just what the consequences are. Their research does not make happy reading for anybody who recognises that equality is one of the biggest economic motors we could have, and one of the best ways we could address the productivity gap in our society. Their figures show that this Government’s Budget will mean that women lose 10 times as much as they gain, with black and ethnic minority women losing 12 times as much.

What does that mean in practice? Forty-three per cent. of people do not earn enough to reach the tax threshold as it is—66% of them are women, and 41% of them have dependent children. When the Government raise the higher rate threshold, 73% of the beneficiaries are men. When we change corporation tax, we have to recognise that we do it in an environment in which shareholders, business owners and managers are disproportionately men. Men benefit more.

This is not about being a victim. This is not about pleading for special treatment. This is about understanding what measures the Government are introducing and how they are making it harder for us to unlock the potential of 51% of our society. It is about having a better economy and a better society, because there is a link between diversity and prosperity.

I am tired of people who eye-roll at this, and of Government Members who see this as being like foxhunting. Frankly, even if they do not get the strong economic or social case for this, they are legally required to do it. The public sector equality duty was introduced in 2011, and it means that the Government have to not just manage these things but do something about them. That includes being able to track the difference they are making, yet this Government have still failed to do any equality impact assessment, let alone a cumulative one. The only equality impact assessments that are published are in the tax information and impact notes, which have a sentence or two buried away in line 324b saying that most of the Government’s policies have little impact at all, or denying any impact. There has certainly been no impact assessment on things like alcohol excise duty rates or fuel duty giveaways—two policies that, again, have a differential impact on men and women.

We have not even begun to talk about the public sector pay cap, and Members on both sides of the House recognise that, when two thirds of our public sector workforce are women, a failure to pay the public sector properly clearly pushes more women into poverty. We can argue about the underlying inequalities that might cause the environment in which these policies operate, and we can argue about the policies’ impact, but we cannot let this Government get away either with saying that they cannot do these calculations when others such as the IFS have, or with arguing that any inequality caused by policies in a Finance Bill will be offset by spending in another Bill. It simply does not make sense. If they cannot measure it, how can they decide it is being offset by something else? That is why it is time that we had this data. [Interruption.]

I understand that the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), would like me to sit down. I am sorry to disappoint him, but 51% of this population are being held back by a Government who do not even know what damage they are doing, and 100% of us deserve better. The way we do that is by holding this Government to account on the public sector equality duty, which says that the Government have a legal duty before making any decisions. It is not enough to consider the impact on equality afterwards. The duty is ongoing, and it is about not just a buried report once in a while, but consistent impact assessments. The duty also says it cannot be delegated—that Ministers cannot leave it to somebody else to figure out what damage they are doing. It also says that, when a problem has been identified, the Government have to act, and that a lack of resources—having just set out where the Government can get some resources, I do not accept there is a lack of them—is not an excuse.

These are examples of how this Budget and this Finance Bill are failing this country. We are in denial of some of the major challenges we face on productivity. This is about having the information so that we can understand how we can make better choices, and about how we have a Government who seem unconcerned that they are breaching the public sector equality duty. That is indicative of a wider problem facing the British public. They have a Government who, right now, have run out of ideas, who are lacking in leadership and who are struggling under the weight of Brexit, but we all know who is going to pay. It is the men and women in our communities who are struggling with debt—the men and women in households who are being disproportionately hit by Government policy.

Inequality is expensive for us all. All of Britain is held back when talent is held back because it is living in poverty. I hope I have shown that there is money to be found and data to be collected if there is a political will. The Brexit Secretary says that he does not have to be very clever to do his job, but I believe the British public do need competency. If they cannot get it from the Government Benches, they can certainly find it on the Labour Benches.

Duties of Customs

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 20th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady raises an extremely important point, particularly in relation to roll-on/roll-off ports. I have been to Dover to meet the port’s chief executive and other staff, and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is closely engaged through various roundtable exercises with all the UK’s ports. We recognise the paramount importance of ensuring that we have fluid trade flows through those ports. The hon. Lady will know that the White Paper set out clearly the sorts of approaches that we will be taking, if necessary, to ensure that those flows are rapid and effective, and that trade is kept moving.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Following our time together in Committee considering the Bill that became the Finance (No.2) Act 2017, the Minister will know my concern that small businesses in Britain will be saddled with the 13th VAT directive. He has set out that the Government’s intention is that a new directive will come into place before we leave the European Union, so will he clarify whether he expects British businesses to have to deal with all the vagaries of the 13th VAT directive?

[Mel Stride]

As the hon. Lady knows, at the point at which we leave the European Union, we will gain further control over VAT, although that depends on the precise nature of the deal that is negotiated. It might be that we move from acquisition VAT to import VAT depending on where that negotiation lands, which remains to be seen. The general principle is that the Government are entirely committed to ensuring that burdens on businesses are kept to an absolute minimum and that trade flows are maintained.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Fysh]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I completely agree.

It is massively important that we look at the data systems, and I have talked a lot with Ministers about the customs declaration service that we are putting in place by January 2019. I have met industry representatives, and I have to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) for organising some of those meetings in a very efficient fashion. They have been incredibly useful in bringing key civil servants and key stakeholders up to date with exactly what is required.

I do not think we need to reinvent the wheel. We do not need to go for full, all-singing, all-dancing, new solutions overnight; there are some practical steps we can take in the interim. We heard from one panel about a system called Intrastat, whereby economic flows around the European Union, based on actual transactions, are recorded. It was suggested that it is possible to, effectively, bolt the tracing of different liabilities on to that system, with the customs system operating in parallel with it.

What our partners in the EU, or in any other part of the world, want to know when goods are moving across one of their borders is what is in those consignments and whether they need to think about a tariff or take into account some other regulatory provision. It is massively important that we can talk to our counterparts on the other side. I implore Ministers to try to persuade the EU, even though so far it has been very reluctant, to allow member states’ national customs authorities to talk properly to us about what data interfaces are going to be required for what will probably be quite a lot of extra transactions and considerations that will have to be made. I certainly stand ready to help with my contacts, if I can, to enable some of those conversations to happen. Whether it is a ramped-up trade facilitation exercise—the “option 1” that the Minister described—or a partnership based on a new type of tracing of the way in which goods move around our economy and across our external borders and those of the EU, at the moment, we will need to make and record lots of declarations of one kind or another, and the other side will have to be confident that what we say is the status of these goods is in fact the case.

VAT processing has been the Cinderella of this conversation over the past few months. Everyone has been focused on the duty side, and not enough focus and attention has been given to the VAT side. The manner of the processing of VAT really makes a difference to very many businesses, and it is a major cash-flow issue for most businesses. If we want to stay open to ideas, as we do, with our EU friends and allies, and if we want to have good facilitation of cross-border trade, we need to address, for example, the ability of a vendor to attend a trade show and take a load of samples with them, because if there is a VAT issue, that could really be a problem. It is also a problem in the art world where very high-value objects are moving around. We need to think about that.

[Stella Creasy]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments. Does he share my concern that because the Government are not giving any clarity on this issue, it is very likely that British businesses will have to deal with all the vagaries of the 13th directive on VAT unless we look for some clarity on retaining our current systems for trading, whether through the customs union or the single market?

[Mr Fysh]

I thank the hon. Lady. I agree that we need clarity as early as possible on all these issues, and I encourage Ministers to come forward with ideas on that.

Returning to what we heard about Ireland in various interventions on the Minister, I would like him to think about whether, in the VAT resolutions, we are confining ourselves a little too much by saying that the Government may not, through the Bill, make any amendment relating to VAT rates, exemptions and zero rating. One of the issues with the Irish border historically, and where the real problems came from when Ireland was given its independence, was the amount of smuggling, and the rates and tariffs on goods going into the UK were a major factor in that. Perhaps we could look to smoothing the feelings and the actual processes on the Irish border to make sure that, as far as possible, our VAT rates are as harmonised as they could be so that there is no temptation to smuggle there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ross Thomson]

No. I want to make some more progress.

Scotland’s exports are world-renowned—I am sure the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and I can absolutely agree about that—and whisky is just one example of a British export success story, with more than 90% of Scotch whisky being sold outwith the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

I anticipated that intervention, although not quite so early in my speech. I return the hon. Gentleman’s compliments—he is one of the nicest gentlemen in this House. The Labour party’s position on the customs union is that we want the UK to have tariff-free access to the European Union throughout the transition period, with the added option of the UK staying in the customs union. That is the position of our Front-Bench team. It is perfectly clear and chimes perfectly well with amendments (e) and (f).

I am disappointed that the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) were not selected. She has done a lot of work to bring the Ways and Means motion to the House, and I think the arguments advanced reflect the fact that we both want our country to stay in the single market and the customs union, not for ideological reasons, but because we know that the businesses of Aberdeen North and Aberdeen South require us to stay. It is impossible to suggest that the United Kingdom should have exactly the same benefits of the single market and the customs union, with a frictionless border and tariff-free access, but not keep the customs union and the single market on the table. It makes no sense.

[Stella Creasy]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Often it is said that sometimes we just need to simplify: if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is a duck. If everything the Government are saying they want looks like and sounds like the customs union and single market, why are we wasting time debating other things?

[Ian Murray]

I am tempted to say that is because they are all quackers, but I am sure that would not go down well and I gave up on the bad jokes some time ago. My hon. Friend is right: the Government are actually arguing for the single market and the customs union, but do not want either. That is why the Bill on the customs union, which will be published tomorrow, will show clearly that the Government are hell-bent in the negotiations with the EU to take us off a cliff edge. No deal is probably their preferred option, and that is what they are promoting in the Ways and Means motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), who made another powerful case for what is becoming incredibly evident in British society.

Let me start by trying to find some common ground on something that has divided us for more than 18 months now. I do not think that anybody here tonight wants to re-run the referendum; we all recognise the referendum result. I do, however, disagree with the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). I think we can get deals with anybody. The question is, what kind of deal and what are the consequences? And that includes no deal. Yes, we could get a free trade deal with other countries but, as we saw when Switzerland tried to negotiate with China, when big goes against little, the results are often not good for little. It is a real Hobson’s choice. China now has immediate access to the Swiss market, while the Swiss will have to wait decades to get similar access to the Chinese market.

All the options have consequences, including the option that this Government have taken over the past 18 months: trying to fudge and bombast their way through. Like many Government Members, I welcome the fact that we are finally having this debate because I want to speak up, above all, for the people whose lives, livelihoods and businesses depend on the certainty of knowing what happens next. That is a certainty that they are not getting from this Government. Some 18 months after the referendum, there are some 759 different treaties that have to be renegotiated, but there has been no progress on any of them, and we are fewer than 18 months away from the date on which we are supposed to leave the European Union.

The Government are spending money, hand over fist, to try to sort out the mess that they are creating every single day. We have had it confirmed that that money is coming from our armed forces, and the Minister has confirmed to me today that it is also coming from our education services. Money is being reprioritised to try to figure out what on earth a deal with Europe would look like. Eighteen months on, we have no answers. And all because the Prime Minister simply cannot admit that she simply got it wrong in the Lancaster House speech when she ruled out of access immediately the customs union and the single market.

I support the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) because the British public deserve better. If the Government are going to make a mess of it, it is up to us as parliamentarians to try to give the people we represent—who need certainty and to understand what their future holds—the clarity that they desire.

[Peter Grant]

Does the hon. Lady think that it says something about the Prime Minister’s priorities that she took the time to apologise to her own Back Benchers for the disastrous general election that she dragged them into, but she will not apologise to the people of these islands for the disastrous Brexit that she is dragging us into?

[Stella Creasy]

I was struck by the discussion earlier about making decisions so quickly. I, too, did not vote for the article 50 legislation to be triggered, because I was concerned it was too soon in the process. However, some disasters are of our own making, and a snap general election in which the public thoroughly rejected her hard Brexit is certainly something the Prime Minister should learn from.

In her Lancaster House speech, the Prime Minister said that she wanted associate membership of the customs union—a membership that does not exist. The legislation that will come from the motion before us tonight is supposed to answer that question. Yet, I have read the Government’s White Paper, I have asked the Prime Minister repeatedly about the idea of associate membership, and I have asked her whether she has raised it with her European counterparts, and we have no answer.

It is a bit like someone asking to be an associate member of a gym—to use the swimming pool, but not to pay for all the weights or classes. Oddly enough, most business people would turn them down flat or at least give them an answer. I am very struck by the fact that, 18 months on, the Government cannot even tell us whether they have asked whether the wonderful, mythical, innovative, creative, dynamic partnership they believe they can get is even on the table.

This approach literally makes no sense. If we look at the reality of how we trade as a nation, we see that we are not an island factory; we are a nation that works with other countries to produce goods, and we are proud of the goods we produce through our hard endeavour. Let me give a great example. In the food and beverages industry, the EU accounts for almost 70% of our supply chain. In our car industry, 44% of the value of UK car exports comes from imported products. In the UK, we are great at making bumpers, brakes and clutches, but we are not so good at radiators, suspension or gearboxes. That is why we work with other countries to produce the great British cars that we are all so proud of. That is what is at stake when we reject the customs union out of hand: the ability to navigate and manage those relationships effectively and efficiently. For every £1 in car exports from the UK, 44p is spent on importing foreign parts. Some 24% of all imports from the EU are from the car industry. That is at stake when we suddenly rip up the rules under which that relationship happens.

The car industry is not alone. In 14 different sectors, at least 15% of the supply chain is dependent on the European Union—dependent on not having the kind of customs tariffs we are talking about and on having frictionless trade. That is true of some sectors much more than others. In the paper industry, 71% of the supply chain is dependent on the European Union. In the rubber and plastics industry, the figure is 69%; in pharmaceuticals, it is 66%. That is why we know that leaving the customs union will cost us £25 billion. These new tariffs alone will add at least £4.5 billion a year to importers’ costs—money they can ill afford to spend.

Then we get on to the practicalities—this is not just about the money that being part of the customs union and the single market helps us to save. We will see delays at Dover because nobody has yet invented the technology that will allow this frictionless trade. When we talk about pre-lodging customs checks, we know that that means still more paperwork and more complexity in the supply chain. It is no wonder the car industry is desperate for us to continue our membership of the customs union. So too is the National Farmers Union; so too are the leading pharmaceuticals brands. Being part of the EU gives us access not just to markets in the EU but, through our free trade agreements, to a third of all global markets at preferential trading rates.

When we look at the case for the customs union and at what it gives us now, it is clear that this is not about nostalgia for the “Ode to Joy”; cold, hard business sense says that if we have a good way of working, why would we rip it up? But ripping it up is exactly what the Government are doing—for something that, 18 months on, they still cannot tell us will exist. [Interruption.] I am sorry to see that I have made the Ministers entirely leave the Front Bench by pointing that out, because I really hope that at least one Minister will be here to answer one of my concerns about this legislation and particularly about the VAT proposals.

We have all talked about tariffs and customs tonight, but I want to unmask myself as a geek interested in VAT. When I talk to small businesses in my local community, VAT is one of their prime concerns. [Interruption.] I am grateful to the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) for being here. I am particularly looking for answers on the 13th directive—I know it is something he knows intimately.

VAT is one of those issues every business will say is a nightmare. I never thought that Labour Members would be arguing for less red tape than Government Members were, but that is exactly what we are talking about tonight. Some 63% of small businesses say that Europe is their priority market. If we add to the paperwork they have to deal with by removing the customs union and the single market, we will of course make trading harder for them. Compared with the bigger companies, they do not have the flexibility that Ministers blithely suggest they have.

Currently, businesses incurring VAT in the EU are able to claim it back through intra-country mechanisms. If they sell printers to Sweden, and they incur VAT as part of that, they can claim it back—it is relatively easy. Specifically—I am sure the Minister will want to look this up—we are talking about articles 170 and 171 of Council directive 2006/112/EC—the prime VAT directive. The detailed rules are in Council directive 2008/9/EC, and they are in our legislation. These Ways and Means resolutions will therefore have to address this point. I am sad that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is not here to hear it, because I have been raising it with him for some time. I can see that he is talking to his officials. I very much hope that in his concluding remarks he will finally be able to tell me the answer.

Right now, because we have the single market, businesses trading with Europe can reclaim their VAT and manage VAT relatively simply. If we leave the single market, they will have to move on to the 13th directive, which covers non-EU companies trading in the EU. The details of the 13th directive are clearly written to be advantageous to companies, saying that they can set their own VAT terms. Let us think about that for a moment. A UK car manufacturer trying to trade across Europe in radiators and the pieces and parts that make them will suddenly have to deal with VAT across 27 different countries, and 27 different pieces of paper. I am glad that the Financial Secretary is now here because he and I share a concern to remove red tape for our businesses to make sure that British businesses are not facing additional paperwork and additional complexity.

[Mrs Ellman]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the very serious problems for businesses that she is so ably identifying have implications for the whole of a local community? As companies get into great difficulties and jobs may be lost, that reduces spending power and affects the whole community and the services there.

[Stella Creasy]

I absolutely agree. This is the challenge that we face.

Eighteen months on, it is not unfair that businesses across the country are saying “What next?” and asking how they might adapt to whatever the final deal with Europe might be. Eighteen months on, none of us is any closer to being able to give them any answers. They do not need White Papers that talk about ambition and creativity in VAT proposals; they need clarity, because if they are going to have to learn new systems and have additional paperwork, and if there are going to be excessive delays in their imports and exports, they need to be able to adjust for it. The Government can say all they want about getting these ambitious deals, but they have to negotiate with 27 other countries that are quite happy with the relationships that they already have, perfectly satisfied with the intra-EU arrangements that they already have, and think that the customs union works for them. If we in this House want frictionless trade, if we want to make it as easy as possible for our businesses, big or little, to trade, and if we want them to have as little paperwork—digitised as it is—as possible, then the answer is the single market and the customs union. In 18 months, nobody has been able to come up with a better arrangement. I will wager that the same will be true in 18 months’ time.

Let us not leave British businesses hanging any longer. I am backing the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South because I want to be able to go tomorrow to those businesses in my community that trade with Europe and say to them, “This is what it’s going to look like. You can plan ahead in your supply chain, you can buy ahead, you can do the deals you need to do, and you can invest.” I understand why they feel that they cannot do that right now, and it is my job to try to help them gain that certainty. That is why I ask other Members of this House to join us in voting for this amendment and giving this Government the message that Britain deserves better.

Tax Avoidance and Evasion

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady raises an important point.

There is an assumption on the Opposition Benches that nothing is being done about these various issues. The right hon. Member for Barking referred to an element of the “Panorama” programme on the Panama papers that described income that had been diverted overseas and then loaned back to individuals. That is known as disguised remuneration. She rightly asked what the Government were doing about such practices. Let me point her in the direction of the Finance Bill that has just gone through this House. On the matter of disguised remuneration, individuals will be given until 2019 to clear up those arrangements. Otherwise, they will pay a penalty. It is as simple as that.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mel Stride]

I want to make just a little more progress, as I am conscious of the time and the shortness of the debate.

In fact, we have brought in 75 measures since 2010 to clamp down on these practices. A further 35 will come in from 2015, raising £18.5 billion by 2020-21. One of the problems is that we have been so active in bringing in so many measures that, unfortunately, not all of them have been noticed. In last week’s debate, the right hon. Member for Barking raised the issue of taking action against those who promote tax avoidance schemes. Once again, she needs only to look at the Finance Bill—all 777 pages of it; it is very technical, and it will probably put her to sleep at night—in which she will find measures to deal with precisely what she was urging us to take action on last week. We have already done it!

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

Going after the tax gap is exactly what this Government are doing, and we have an exemplary record. We have the lowest tax gap in the entire world. It is the lowest in history—far lower than it was under the last Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman asked a specific question about tax officers. We need to move towards an HMRC that is ready and equipped for the 21st century. That does not mean a large number of scattered offices; it means hub offices with the necessary staff and technical skills to facilitate the transfer of knowledge and understanding in order to move forward.

[Stella Creasy]

rose—

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

I do not want to go global in my answer as I am talking about the general position in the UK property market, but it is undoubtedly true that a sense of great unfairness now pertains. Prices have risen so sharply and beyond the means even of those on relatively high incomes—let alone modest ones—particularly in London. Young professionals can be on £100,000 and still struggle to get on the ladder in significant parts of the capital. But it is not just about London. My constituency of South Suffolk and those in the counties around London know that the ripple of high prices in expensive areas comes out many miles—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) is shaking his head, but many people move to my constituency because of the sheer cost of living in London.

[Stella Creasy]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about property prices. He just mentioned the Government’s decision to close the loophole whereby foreign owners of residential properties were avoiding capital gains tax. Does he regret not joining with the Opposition to close the loophole regarding commercial properties? That is having exactly the same impact on the property market.

[James Cartlidge]

It has to be said that the commercial sector is one area that has been much weaker since the Brexit vote, but the main issue of fairness from the point of view of taxpayers and first-time buyers relates to residential property. Making changes to tax is about not just tax avoidance, but about provisions such as the higher stamp duty we now levy on second-home ownership and properties purchased to rent out. The key point is that those measures have had a huge impact in supporting first-time buyers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I start by joining Members on both sides of the House who have congratulated my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) on bringing this important debate? I also congratulate all the journalists involved in this investigation.

In my short contribution, I hope I might elicit from the Minister a modicum of regret for some of his recent actions. What we need to talk about today is tax avoidance, and, if I can, I want to take on the challenge put forward by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris). What precisely is the issue with these offshore companies? More specifically, why would anybody hold UK property and UK entities overseas?

When we look at those questions, these papers raise two clear issues for us. First and foremost, there is the case for transparency, and I want to use the example of private finance initiative companies to show why that is a problem. Secondly, there is the case for addressing the loopholes that this evidence has highlighted for us, which the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) set out.

[David Morris]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Stella Creasy]

I will not give way at this point, because I have only two minutes left.

Nine offshore infrastructure companies own between 50% and 100% of the equity in 335 PFI companies, which account for 45% of all projects. Twelve companies have equity in 74% of all current projects. At this point, we do not know what tax is being held overseas as a result—tax that was part of the PFI value-for-money assessment. These papers reveal how that happens. Secondly, on avoidance of capital gains tax, these papers reveal that Blackstone avoided stamp duty and capital gains tax on UK commercial property to a value of around £66 billion.

These are all choices. At the end of the day, we know that the lawyers involved are like water moving towards the sea—they will follow the easiest route. The problem here is politicians, not lawyers.

[Bambos Charalambous]

Does my hon. Friend support country-by-country reporting, which will help some of the most deprived parts of the world?

[Stella Creasy]

Absolutely, and I concur with all those who have raised that.

We can take action in this House. Specifically, new clause 2 to the Finance Bill—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said, many of us brought forward proposals—looked at the tax loophole relating to capital gains tax on commercial property. I will take no lectures from Conservative Members about how wonderfully this Government are doing on tax avoidance, when, just two weeks ago, they voted down a measure that would have brought in £6 billion a year to our Exchequer and given British businesses a level playing field. The Paradise papers show exactly why there is a problem, and I have mentioned £66 billion of capital gains tax and stamp duty that we are not getting because companies are registered overseas.

Nor will I take lectures from the Minister about loans, given that he passed in the Finance Bill a measure to reduce the share relief that PFI companies can claim on their loans. Those companies own millions of pounds’-worth of our public sector, and are able to trade off the interest that they pay on those loans in overseas companies, but the Minister has just passed an amendment that will make sure they do not even have to pay any tax on that. Those companies can comfortably be held overseas so that we will not even see what is happening.

In the minute I have left, therefore, I want to make some simple proposals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) said, we absolutely need a public register. However, we also need a moratorium on all public investment in these companies until we know precisely what tax we are missing, and until we can be confident that these offshore companies are not milking the British taxpayer twice—by not paying their taxes and by getting us to pay them through PFI and public infrastructure investments. We must also close the loophole on capital gains tax on commercial properties as a matter of urgency. Nobody who faces cuts in their public services can allow that to continue for a second longer.

Finally, we need to rethink the decision to give PFI companies the tax relief that the Government have just given them. I hope the Minister regrets his actions, because, frankly, this is not about the Paradise papers; it is about parasites bleeding money from our public sector.

Paradise Papers

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 6th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The diverted profits tax works every day of the week. It works where HMRC has to step in and sort out the companies that fall foul of it, but it works even better than that: it prevents and deters many, many companies from behaving in an inappropriate fashion.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister says that HMRC is now seeking to investigate this matter. Ahead of the Budget, when I suspect the Government may wish to make some public spending commitments, will the Minister commit to a moratorium while this matter is being investigated on any public contracts going to companies that have offshore trusts?

[Mel Stride]

I am not going to get into the business of providing moratoriums on any particular matter at the Dispatch Box, tempting though the hon. Lady’s suggestion may be. That is not a path I am going to go down.

Finance Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

As it is Halloween, I rise to give the Minister a fright, because if he thinks he is going to get away without properly examining new clause 2 and the benefits that it could bring to our country and British business, he is in for a trick-or-treat moment. There are certainly ghosts that haunt our politics—[Interruption.] I am disappointed to see you being so slow, Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] That is certainly very spooky.

As I said, there are ghosts that haunt our politics, so I start my speech by putting on record my thanks to the former Member for Tatton, George Osborne, for inspiring new clause 2. Indeed, I noted that the Minister referred to his work, too. These were the words of the former Member for Tatton in 2015 when the then Government brought in the first rules around tax and non-doms:

“It is not fair that non-doms with residential property here in the UK can put it in an offshore company and avoid inheritance tax.”—[Official Report, 8 July 2015; Vol. 598, c. 325.]

By using those words, the former Chancellor raised two important issues: first, the fairness of our taxation system and, secondly, how it extends to foreign ownership. He was absolutely right to introduce those measures, but what we are talking about today is the necessary and inevitable conclusion of that debate: what we do when people raise issues about fairness and foreign ownership. The new clause answers that call because, frankly, it is not fair that British businesses have to pay corporation tax on their capital gains when they sell commercial properties, but overseas businesses trading in the UK in UK-based property do not.

It is not fair that we are one of the few countries in the world to treat its businesses in this way and let foreign companies off the hook—all those real estate investors who some might feel donate so much else to some in this country, but who do not pay their taxes. As the previous Chancellor argued, people can put property into an offshore company to avoid tax.

If the Minister’s main objection to the new clause is the way in which I have described the domicile of these people, he ought to think again. Certainly, he ought to do as I did today and google the term “tax efficient Jersey UK real estate”, because when he does and he sees the advice being offered to non-resident companies, I suspect he will find it galling. He will find companies including BNP Paribas Real Estate, Ogier, Bedell Cristin and Hawksford boasting about how UK real estate investment trusts based in Jersey but listed on the international stock exchange do not pay the same rates of stamp duty as those resident in the UK, and do not pay capital gains tax. Indeed, the International Stock Exchange itself states:

“we have pragmatic listing requirements for this product”.

That simply means that the businesses involved get to avoid the same charges that our British businesses have to pay. We as British taxpayers should be asking why any company is using such a model—why such companies are given these listings and are able to buy and sell UK property in this way—because it is very hard to see what the justification is, and why we make it so easy to exploit this loophole when there is tax on residential property sales, but not on commercial properties.

The former Chancellor boasted in 2015 that making non-UK-based people pay capital gains tax on their residential property sales would raise £1.5 billion over the course of this Parliament. The purpose of the new clause is to tell us just how much closing this loophole would raise, and just how much these companies are making through such behaviour.

Sadly, because the Minister was so determined to get through his speech so quickly, I did not hear the number he came up with. I certainly find it striking that HMRC does not know how much money is missing, but in the spirit of this cross-party measure, let me offer the House some of my own figures.

The British Property Federation says that there is about £871 billion of commercial real estate in the UK, which represents 10% of our nation’s entire wealth. That is a hugely important market in its own right, but how we buy and sell commercial property also affects our residential property market, as it has an impact on the price of land. For those of us who represent constituencies where house prices are exorbitant, to say the least, tackling the overheating in our property market would be a very noble thing to do. I believe that we would get support for that from both sides of the House.

We know that about 20% of commercial real estate is sold every year, and that it was worth an eye-watering £115 billion in 2015—that is the figure the taxman knows about. We also know that about 30% of commercial property in the UK is held in these offshore trusts and companies. For those who are fans of “Countdown” and want to see how I have done my homework, I have done my sums assuming an 8% increase as the long-term trend rate for commercial property prices. Working on that assumption, if about 20% of that property is sold and the current 19% rate of corporation tax is used, there would be about £11 billion of taxable gains every year. It is therefore not unrealistic to expect that around £6 billion of taxation could be collected.

[Jim McMahon]

We are told time after time that we should live within our means and that our public services will pay the price if we do not, so is it not the case that the first thing we should do is to maximise our means?

[Stella Creasy]

Spoken like a true former local authority leader who has had to deal with the consequences of Government cuts!

This is about the question of fairness that was put forward by the former Chancellor. None of this is illegal. We might consider it immoral, but it is certainly not illegal, and none of it is captured by UK anti-avoidance rules. The Minister is not being open about companies that might include UK residents who have their properties held offshore. This is unfair to UK businesses. I understand that at present there is concern about economic policies and a dangerous air of radicalism in British politics. Let me reassure Conservative Members who might feel frightened about supporting this measure to close the loophole, and fear that it could be a radical socialist policy—I happen to think that it could be—that this is simply a question of fairness.

This is also something that most other countries do. Canada, Australia and the rest of Europe do it, so the new clause would bring us into line with them. Indeed, the OECD model double tax treaty explicitly preserves the right of countries to tax non-residents on their capital gains from the disposal of local real estate.

The Bill itself brings in anti-avoidance measures relating to inheritance tax and to holding property through non-UK companies. That is why it is difficult, having listened to the Minister in Committee, to understand why this particular proposal has been put into the “too complex” category. In Committee, he voted against a similar provision because he argued that it was just too complex, while admitting that the rules introduced in 2015 were designed to catch individuals holding a title over a dwelling in a trust or a closely held company. He argued against the proposal because he said that it would require what he considered to be a whole tax code. My problem with the Minister’s saying that this is too complicated is that it places him and the British Government in a special category. If most other countries can get their heads around how to tax non-resident companies’ capital gains on commercial properties, I simply fail to understand why it is beyond the wit and wisdom of the UK Treasury to do so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) has mentioned the human impact of this situation. The Institute for Fiscal Studies tells us that the Chancellor has black hole in his budget of £20 billion and rising, and that is before we even consider the cost and impact of Brexit. If my estimate is right that closing the loophole would raise £6 billion every year, that money would pay for the entire public health budget helping people with diabetes and heart disease. It would cover restoring nursing bursaries and keeping open our police stations that are currently destined for closure. It would entirely cover the cost of a public sector pay rise in line with inflation—that is according to the IFS’s figures, not mine. When reports tell us that the Government are so short of money at a time when a Budget is coming up, “Is it fair?” and “Can we afford not to do this?” are two important questions for British taxpayers.

I disagree with the Minister, but if he is worried about the drafting of new clause 2, I would support his tabling an amendment to address the use of the term “domicile”. Even if Government Members are worried about the detail, new clause 2 simply looks at the numbers, so it would give us some information. HMRC does not know the amount that we are missing out on as a result of this loophole. The Minister mumbled something about OBR figures, but I have done my own calculations and we are not talking about small change. This money could have a tangible impact on our public finances now.

I am sad that the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) is not in the Chamber because he chided my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George) in September about a lack of action on loopholes. This proposal has cross-party support, so I would love Members from both sides of the House to recognise that when we see something that is unfair and costs us billions of pounds, we can act quickly. I am sure that the Minister will be given an opportunity to respond to the debate, so if other countries can do this, if British businesses are suffering unfairness, and if our public services desperately need the cash, will he think again? He says that he keeps the tax situation under review, so if he will pledge to publish a specific review of capital gains tax on commercial properties, I will happily not press the new clause to a Division.

British taxpayers have a right to know how much money is leaking out of our system as a result of the loophole. I would wager that many MPs will be lobbied by their constituents about closures in their community, public service cuts and struggling businesses, and by people who cannot afford their own home due to the overheated property market. Those people will want answers, so I look forward to what the Minister has to say. When we were young, we were all told that money does not grow on trees, but in this instance the roots are overseas, and it is up to the Minister to pull them up.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Minister.

[Mel Stride]

It is pleasure to appear before you for my second appearance, Madam Deputy Speaker.

To pick up quickly on a point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), digital exclusion is covered in clause 62, which provides that the digital exclusion condition is met if

“for any reason (including age, disability or location) it is not reasonably practicable for the person or partner to use electronic communications or to keep electronic records.”

That is the test, and the Bill contains powers to allow HMRC’s commissioners to bring in further grounds for exclusion as the measure is rolled out and we see how it operates.

I see that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has been on her phone and has already tweeted that I have rejected her advances in this debate, but I am now at the Dispatch Box trying to make my points. She makes her points powerfully and raises an important issue, as I signalled earlier, but she has to accept that new clause 2 would not actually do what she would intend it to do. It confuses non-doms with residents, which is the critical distinction, and would classify companies as being non-domiciled, which they cannot technically be. This is a complicated area about which we had an extended debate in Committee, but I have made it clear that we will continue to consider it. We take on board the general thrust of what the hon. Lady wants to achieve.

[Stella Creasy]

I make it clear that I am not making advances to the Minister; I am making arguments to him. Let me ask him one simple question: if this is so complicated—if it seems that the UK Treasury cannot do it—why can most other countries operate without a loophole?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

It is not a question of publishing information on every area we look into, but I have made it clear that we are seriously considering the issues that have been raised. I have also made it clear that new clause 2 would not do what the hon. Member for Walthamstow describes.

[Stella Creasy]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mel Stride]

I will give way one last time. We went through this at considerable length in Committee.

[Stella Creasy]

I disagree with the words “at considerable length.” I am grateful to the Minister for trying to explain what I am attempting to do. For the avoidance of doubt, the Opposition are asking that British taxpayers and businesses who are paying this charge know exactly what other companies are getting off paying. He tried to mention something from the Office for Budget Responsibility and he clearly has some figures in his head for how much the loophole is potentially costing the British taxpayer. Will he repeat loudly and clearly what he thinks the number is and where he got his evidence?

[Mel Stride]

As I have said, we are looking at this and we will continue to do so. I have carefully considered the points raised by the hon. Lady both on Report and in Committee, and I think I have a clear understanding, as she does, of what she wishes to achieve.

New clause 2 would not do what the hon. Lady intends. I hope that she will take some comfort from my assurances about our looking at this matter and that she will not press the new clause to a Division. Whether or not she does, I urge the House to reject the Opposition amendments and new clauses.

Finance Bill (Sixth sitting)

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th October 2017 Public Bill Committees

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I am conscious that several members of the Committee may wish to take part in the emergency debate on universal credit—a subject close to many of our hearts—so I do not intend to speak for a long time. However, we ought to get value for money out of these Committee sittings and, indeed, this Bill, so I hope that my new clause gives the Government some ideas about how we can solve the pressing problem of the public finances and the lack of funding.

Government Members often argue that Labour only wants to spend money, but my proposals very much seek to save money for the country. Indeed, they present a way to protect UK taxpayers and British businesses, generate potentially billions for the Exchequer, and address the pressures on the housing market. I am sure that none of us would want to lay claim to the magic money tree, but I believe that my new clause would provide for a concrete cash cow in which the Government could invest, and I hope to convince Ministers and Government Back Benchers to support it.

The new clause relates to a proposal by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer—I am not sure how many jobs he has now, but he is currently the editor of the Evening Standard—about the way in which capital gains tax was applied to property sales.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I am interested in the former Chancellor and how many jobs he has. It is particularly interesting to learn how much he is being paid for those jobs.

[Stella Creasy]

I am afraid that I do not have that figure to hand, but I do have figures relating to the amount of money that the new clause could raise for the public Exchequer. I hope that my hon. Friend will be as pleased with and as interested in those numbers as I am.

Historically, only UK residents or those with a permanent UK base have been subject to capital gains tax. In April 2013 that was changed to include the disposals of UK dwellings owned by non-resident companies, partnerships and collective investment schemes, which were subject to an annual tax on enveloped dwellings. In April 2015 that was extended to all non-UK residents disposing of UK residential property, and the critical point is that that was about residential property. The argument that non-doms should be paying capital gains tax on the disposal of property was put forward by the previous, and indeed current, Government. The question is: why did they make it apply only to residential properties? As I hope to prove, that has created a loophole through which some people have chosen to put their properties.

We are talking about a rate of tax that is between 18% and 28%, or 20% for corporates. The standard OECD double tax treaty expressly preserves the right of countries to tax non-residents on capital gains from the disposal of local real estate. Many of us will have seen at first hand in our communities the impact of this country’s over-inflated housing market and the connection between the residential and the commercial property market. The Adam Smith Institute reckons that there are 1 million non-doms in the UK, although only 110,000 are declared. Those people are part of our communities, but they are benefitting from an advantageous tax position because of this loophole.

The Bill tries to address issues relating to inheritance tax and holding property through UK companies, so the Government are interested in where people might be using companies to avoid paying tax. Indeed, that is one of the debates that we have been having. The new clause addresses another issue, which is the ability to designate a property as a commercial property to avoid paying the residential charge that this Government introduced in 2015. We know that that is hitting UK companies competing with non-UK companies. In tabling this new clause, I am making a plea to the Minister to be on the side of British businesses that are being unfairly treated in our tax system. We know that people set up property holding companies to avoid those charges. By changing the loophole, we would be able to apply the charge fairly across the board. Indeed, it has to be asked why anybody would hold UK real estate through a foreign company except for tax purposes.

The Minister might say that this about a competitive tax advantage for the UK. Let me reassure him that almost nowhere else in the world exempts foreigners from tax on selling real estate. By closing the loophole, we would simply bring ourselves into line with Canada, Australia and indeed the rest of Europe. The Minister may claim that there are anti-avoidance rules that would take precedence, but if a non-resident company operates in the UK through a UK permanent establishment, the disposal will be subject to UK capital gains tax. That is not the requirement we are talking about; we are talking about organisations that hold property in the UK through offshore companies and designate that property as commercial property. It is the difference between the residential and the commercial that we need to deal with in terms of this loophole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend think that the definition of commercial properties would include properties that were previously residential, such as those in my constituency in the Peak district? They were residential homes, but they were sold to owners who live outside the area and are now used primarily as second homes, although they are rented for a very small number of weeks during the year. That has turned them into commercial properties, severely depleting the number of homes available to local people, particularly in rural areas of outstanding natural beauty.

[Stella Creasy]

My hon. Friend has shown how simple it is to evade the tax by avoiding the loophole—the previous Chancellor tried to close it by ensuring that non-doms paid capital gains tax on the sale of residential property—simply by repurposing a building as commercial property. Even given the rules on closed companies in existing legislation, people can get around the charge. I am suggesting that the figure could be as much as £8 billion. I certainly think that at least £1 billion of public revenue could come from closing the loophole and simplifying the way we treat non-doms with capital gains tax. The Minister may have a different number, but the point of the new clause is to get the number.

The Bill is about how we manage public finances. Giving this tax loophole to non-doms means that our British businesses are unfairly treated and our property market faces artificial pressure. We are missing out on vital funds that could go into our public services. The new clause is not a magic money tree; it is a concrete cash cow. If the Minister will not agree to publishing the data, will he commit to looking at how we can close the loophole?

[Mel Stride]

New clause 2—I think it is now known as the concrete cash cow clause—provides us with an opportunity to discuss the rules surrounding UK commercial property and those who are foreign-domiciled. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow explained, her new clause would require HMRC to review the taxation of capital gains on commercial property disposal by UK taxpayers with a foreign domicile.

There is no question but that all UK residents, whether UK-based or non-domiciled, are chargeable for tax on profits from selling UK land. That includes non-domiciles who are taxed on a remittance basis, where foreign income and gains are taxed only when they are brought into the UK. Our tax base is predominantly those who are resident in the United Kingdom. As the hon. Lady has drawn to our attention, recent changes removed non-residents into the UK tax base for the sale of UK residential property. The new clause raises the fact that that treatment does not extend to non-residents for the sale of commercial property in this country. While I understand why she suggests that extending the laws would raise revenue, I should point out that this is a very complex area, which needs to be carefully considered.

The 2015 rules were designed to catch individuals and ways in which a person may hold title over a dwelling such as via trusts and closely held companies. They do not apply to companies with lots of shareholders. The structures that are used to own commercial property are different from residential property, often more complex and involving corporates, joint ventures and specialist property vehicles. We would need rules that address such structures and get to the heart of the ultimate owner.

Will the hon. Lady consider this illustration? I might live in Canada and own 50% of a home in Walthamstow. I might easily conceive, if I did not know for sure, that selling my part of the house in the UK would mean paying some UK tax. However, imagine instead that I own a handful of shares in a fund of some kind, which in turn owns half an office block in Walthamstow. Being such a minor shareholder, I may not even know how my money is invested. To send the tax man chasing round overseas for the little shareholder in a commercial building would hardly be cost-effective. We would need to design balanced rules that look at how the market works and what would yield the Exchequer the best return.

Extending the current rules to include any UK property is not a simple matter of striking through “residential property” and inserting “all UK property” into the current provisions, as this would not take into account the intrinsic differences in the way that commercial properties are owned and dealt with.

[Mel Stride]

The point I was trying to make was not so much whether one classified a property as residential or commercial. My point was that where it is commercial, the ownership arrangements can be so complicated that this kind of approach is far from simple.

[Stella Creasy]

I think the Minister is making a strong case for the new clause and providing the data. He may want to update his colleagues on the fact that the closed company model is five or fewer participants. Were there to be six participants, that would extend the limitations he is talking about. I also want to ask him, now that we have the residential rules in place, whether he will commit to publishing how many properties that were previously cast as residential are now categorised as commercial use since that legislation came in. We might begin to get an understanding of whether people are using this loophole to evade the capital gains tax to which we are entitled.

[Mel Stride]

I am certainly happy to look into the issue of what data are available that might reasonably be released for those properties that might have changed from residential to commercial. My point is that the existing rules for residential property involve, for example, consultation with external experts over a period of two years. They are arguably, for reasons that we have been discussing, more simple and straightforward than the arrangements that would need to be in place for a commercial property situation. To ensure that legislation works effectively, HMRC would be able to collect taxes from overseas taxpayers.

The UK commercial property market is even more complex and inextricably linked to many other markets and investments both in the UK and overseas. Bringing non-resident companies into these rules would bring with them a whole tax code for corporates, which would need to be considered and applied consistently in the context of someone who may have no other UK tax footprint.

Of course, there are existing exemptions and reliefs for the UK investor that would need to be considered to see whether and how they might apply to an overseas equivalent and whether such exemptions could be used to undermine the idea as a whole. Any change to further broaden our base would require consultation with the public, tax experts and affected sectors, particularly those involved with funds and pensions, to ensure they were clear, enforceable, robust to avoidance, and achieved their intention. I assure the hon. Member for Walthamstow that we keep all taxes under careful and continuous review to ensure that the tax system works effectively for the taxpayers of this country.

[Stella Creasy]

Again, the Minister makes a compelling case for the new clause, which would enable exactly such an information-gathering exercise. As he points out, this may be a complex area. I note, however, that the Bill deals with overseas companies and their inheritance tax positions. I fail to understand why Ministers accept that we need to address the use of commercial entities to avoid inheritance tax but do not accept that we need to address their use to avoid capital gains tax. Will he say a little about that?

[Mel Stride]

As I have said, I assure the hon. Lady that we keep all taxes under careful review to ensure that the tax system works effectively for the taxpayers of this country. I favour that, rather than requiring HMRC by statute to conduct reviews, as the best way to develop tax policy. I heard what she had to say about those taxes, and I will certainly consider the questions that she raised, but I urge the Committee to reject the new clause.

[Stella Creasy]

I am afraid that I am not satisfied that the Minister has made a strong enough argument against his own argument that this is a complicated area in which we need information. The new clause would not commit the Government to closing the loophole; it would simply start the process of asking how much the loophole costs us and recognising that, where we create a category for one type of property and people can apply it to another, that may generate a loophole that is exploited to the detriment of the UK taxpayer. With that in mind, and in full support of the British businesses that are being penalised as a result of the Government’s failure to address that loophole, I wish to test the will of the Committee on this matter.

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

Finance Bill (Fifth sitting)

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Kirsty Blackman]

I appreciate the Minister’s point. In an earlier sitting, he mentioned the positive timelines when people phone HMRC for advice; apparently the phone is answered very quickly. I get that he says the statistics show that, but people are walking into my surgeries and into my constituency office saying that they have tried for hours to phone HMRC and have really struggled to get through. Despite him saying that the statistics show one thing, the lived experience of my constituents is very different. That is why I have these concerns, and even if one person or a handful of people cannot get through on the phone and fill in their form on time because they are not able to answer the question, it is a concern. I implore the Minister to continue working on call times and to ensure that, when people phone, they get through as quickly as possible and that the calls are answered, and that the advice provided is correct so that people can make the correct choice, particularly with online forms.

Labour Members have tabled a number of amendments to the clause. We were clear in the SNP manifesto that we supported a phased move to digital reporting, so what the Minister has proposed is now much more in line with what we were thinking. I ask that Labour Members, in speaking to the amendments, explain why they chose 2022, and I will make a call after that on whether we think supporting them is relevant. One Labour amendment suggests that we should not move towards digital reporting, which would be a concern for us because our manifesto commitment was positive about digital reporting. I look forward to hearing the comments from the Opposition and the Minister.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

As ever, I am eager to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I come to the Committee with a series of amendments on what digital reporting might offer us to resolve some of the challenges faced by employers and employees in our country. There are two issues in particular, which I will come to in turn, because as ever with the Finance Bill, they are technical.

First, I will deal with the treatment of the lowest-paid staff in our country—Office for National Statistics data show that, of all low-paid people, waiters and hospitality staff get paid the least—and what we can do to help them with their incomes. Secondly, I will look at how digitisation could help us to address compliance, which is one of the biggest issues for small businesses. To prefigure the Minister’s comments, I know he will say that that is for another Bill, but given how important it is for the systems to work together, I think this is an issue for this Bill. I hope he will bear with me.

I turn first to amendments 7 and 8—amendments 8 and 39 are identical—which concern the treatment of waiters and hospitality staff. Many Members may be familiar with campaigns on the treatment of tips, service charges and gratuities and with evidence showing that some employers were using those to top up people’s wages and to avoid paying the national minimum wage. Members might therefore be relieved that legislation was brought in to prevent that, but it has become clear that many employers still use tips, service charges and gratuities to avoid paying their staff properly. The amendments go to the heart of how we can address that.

In particular, Members might not be aware that people are supposed to pay tax and national insurance on their tips. If an employee is paid their tips through a tronc, where their employer collects the money usually using an online system, which is what we are debating today, the employer is supposed not only to pool the tips and share them out—after all, I think we would all recognise that as well as the person who serves a meal, the people who work in the kitchen deserve recognition of their work—but to check that the employee has paid national insurance and tax.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

Yes, that is the concern. There is a lot of evidence that the exemption, which lets staff run their own tips scheme—it is like staff in a small café sharing the money in the jar, but across a large restaurant chain—is being used by major employers to avoid paying national insurance and, indeed, pension obligations further down the line, especially given auto-enrolment.

Another issue to which the amendments relate is the variations in charges that employers apply to employees for administering such schemes. Some restaurant chains will pass on 100% of the tips paid to a member of staff, while others will charge up to 20% in administration fees for doing it through an electronic system. Clearly, that is not fair and I warrant that customers have never had a restaurant explain to them how much they will charge the employee to pass on the tip that customers want to give them. The amendments are designed to help us understand what is going on.

I hope that the Minister will have strong words with his colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, because if, as we fear, a tax take is being avoided and the lowest-paid people in our country are being exploited as a result, surely we all agree that we need to do something about that. That is why I tabled the amendments. Indeed, 18 months ago, many of us took part in a Government consultation on precisely those issues—that is, how to ensure a fair system for administering tips, service charges and gratuities. I have to tell the Minister that, 18 months on, the Government have not even published the results of that consultation, let alone looked at what could be done to make sure that neither the Exchequer nor the employer is being short-changed.

The Bill offers the Minister an opportunity to make progress on an issue that his ministerial colleagues have kicked into the long grass. If we are digitising records, we can ask employers to clarify precisely what is being collected in tips, service charges and gratuities, and what is income. The amendments address exactly that point: they simply propose that an employer should record the different forms of income—with electronic systems that should be a relatively easy thing to do—and an employee would then be able to access that information.

That is important because if someone is self-employed and working in restaurants—my colleagues from north of the border have mentioned people administering their own tax records—they ought to know what their liabilities are. At present, however, someone who is part of a tronc system does not necessarily know what they are being paid in tips, gratuities and service charges. These simple amendments ask the employer to set out precisely the different streams of income, which their computer systems will easily collate for them, so that our tax system acts more efficiently.

If the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendments and acknowledge the need to make progress—we are, after all, talking about the poorest-paid employees in our country—will he commit to asking his ministerial colleagues in BEIS why it is that, 18 months on, when so many people have provided information about how we could solve the problems, nothing has happened? Indeed, I have regularly asked when the consultation results might at least be published, but the answer has always been, “Sometime in the future.” I am sure that the Minister would agree that the people who serve him a cup of coffee in a restaurant deserve better service from us in making sure that they are not exploited.

Amendment 10 relates to an issue that has come up very little in this Committee—we should correct that—namely the Japanese knotweed that is Brexit, which has taken up so much of our time. I appreciate that the Minister will say that the amendment is not needed because he has published a White Paper on how customs and VAT should fit together. However, having read that White Paper, I must draw attention to an omission from it.

I am sure that Government Members will judge me because I have become slightly obsessed with things such as the 13th directive on VAT, and I am sure they would all like to do a pub quiz on it too. Normal VAT rules allow that businesses registered in the UK can recover UK VAT. People understand that: for most businesses, VAT compliance is one of their biggest pieces of work. The issue with the 13th directive, which the amendment addresses, is the question of what happens when businesses trade in Europe. After all, Europe is still the primary market for the vast majority of businesses: 63% of members of the Federation of Small Businesses have said that Europe is their priority market. That means that if a salesman goes to Sweden and stays in a hotel, the hotel might charge VAT and there is no way that that business would be able to deduct Swedish VAT on its UK VAT return. At the moment, however, under the single market procedures, there is a process by which foreign VAT can be recovered directly from the country in which it was incurred.

For those Members who are VAT geeks, that provision is in articles 170 and 171 of Council directive 2006/112/EC, the prime VAT directive. I will, of course, pass that detail on to Hansard. The detailed rules are in Council directive 2008/9/EC. That is implemented in our own domestic legislation, in section 39 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and regulation 20 of the Value Added Tax Regulations 1995. In practice, that means that each European state is obligated to make a VAT refund. Obviously, there are rules on that, but it works pretty straightforwardly through an online electronic system, which is why it is relevant to the charge under discussion. I can see the Whip wondering where I am going with this, but there is a direct connection.

A similar scheme applies across the EU to businesses that are not established in the EU. That is the 13th VAT directive, which is implemented by section 39(2)(b) of the 1994 Act and is a more complicated system. The amendment is simple. When we leave the EU, we will no longer be able to rely on the simplicity of the intra-country VAT collection scheme that has helped businesses in Britain to trade and provide services, particularly in Europe. We will, therefore, need to move to the 13th directive, or we may move to something else. The customs White Paper, for instance, mentions an “innovative” scheme, but I am pretty sure that other countries, for which the intra-country scheme works well, would not be particularly willing to undertake such innovation. I think they would be happy for us to move to the 13th directive.

I am concerned that there is a lot of evidence that the 13th directive and its administration is not very effective for countries outside the EU. In particular, the 13th directive states that member states must refund VAT to foreign traders. It also states:

“Member states may make the refunds…conditional upon the granting by third states of comparable advantages regarding turnover and taxes.”

One could argue that the Bill’s introduction of an online electronic system provides a comparable advantage, but my amendment asks the simple question being asked by many businesses, including local businesses in my constituency, which are starting to panic about how they will manage their VAT returns in future. How will the proposed electronic scheme fit in with regard to both the current regulations relating to intra-EU VAT refunds and the 13th directive?

Having looked at the Minister’s document, I am concerned that, although it talks a lot about what the UK will do, it does not talk a lot about the 13th directive and what it will mean for British businesses. Page 19 refers to contingency in case there is no deal—of course, we all know that that is a sensitive question for the Cabinet—but what British businesses need to know now is, if they are going to continue to trade in Europe, how they can do that in a cost-effective and red-tape-free way?

One of the more bizarre elements of Brexit is that we seem to be arguing about red tape as though the other side wants more of it, and those of us who wanted to stay in the European Union are bad for wanting less of it. This issue is a great example of that challenge, where being part of the European Union had simplified a process for British businesses. A quarter of FSB members have said that the introduction of any tariff or complication with trading with Europe would put them off trading altogether. We need this Bill to match what is going to happen in future, so that businesses using an online system will not have to change it very quickly as a result of the rules of the 13th directive implemented by other countries making it harder for them to use.

If the Minister will not accept my very simple amendment asking him to set out just how this Bill will impact on the 13th directive, will he commit to discussing with British businesses what the directive might mean for them in terms of VAT compliance and recouping their costs, and what the consequences for them will be in terms of administering the scheme? All small businesses in our constituencies that are looking at that future trading relationship will want to know how much additional paperwork they are going to get, and they deserve an answer.

[Peter Dowd]

I will to speak to clauses 60 and 61, schedule 14 and clause 62 together, as they represent a package of measures that would introduce powers and regulations surrounding digital reporting and record keeping for both VAT and income tax.

The Opposition’s concerns about the Government’s plans for making tax digital are well-versed. We raised them on Second Reading of the March Finance Bill, before they were dropped, and raised them again in the debate on the Ways and Means resolution for this Bill, as well as on its Second Reading. We fully support digitalised tax reporting, which we can all agree has the potential to drastically reduce the amount of time individuals and business owners will have to spend filling out long and complicated tax returns. We could also free up some of HMRC’s time, so that it is better spent clamping down on tax avoidance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

I am a little surprised, given that we have presented evidence today that tax may be being avoided by using HMRC’s E24 guidelines, that the Minister says that we have to wait. We have been waiting 18 months for the consultation even to be published. If he will not accept the amendments today, can he just tell us how long he is prepared to wait and how many people he is prepared to see exploited by the regulations before the Government act?

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Lady for what is a slightly loaded question, if I may say so. I am certainly not prepared to wait for abuses of any kind, but I am prepared to wait, and it is right to wait, for a deep and considered consultation, as opposed to a short debate in the context of the Finance Bill. That is the critical point to bear in mind on this matter.

The clauses before us provide for making tax digital for business. That concerns the way in which businesses record and report their tax liabilities. The hon. Lady made some powerful points about the treatment of service charges, but I believe that they would be better pursued through the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. It has responsibility for this area and is best placed to ensure that tips, gratuities and service charges are treated in line with the principles of clarity and transparency set out in its recent consultation. Dealing with the matter through legislation on digital taxation would risk missing crucial elements for employees or businesses that have been captured in the submissions to the consultation.

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady raises an extremely important matter, which is those employers who do not adhere to the requirements of the national minimum wage. HMRC and the Treasury take that extremely seriously, and we have mechanisms in place, as she may know, for reporting instances of that where they occur. I can assure her that the Treasury is the Ministry directly responsible for strategic oversight of HMRC and that HMRC takes any abuse of the national minimum wage requirements and regulations in this country extremely seriously, and pursues and brings to book those who commit abuses.

[Stella Creasy]

Will the Minister therefore commit today to investigating the use of the E24 guidelines and the tronc schemes, to which we have referred? He may not accept our wider point about protecting people and the tips that they have rightly earned, but HMRC’s E24 guidelines fall directly within his remit, and it is precisely that scheme that we are worried employers are abusing, so will he commit today, given that he has just explained to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak that he cares very much about this matter, to an investigation and to publishing the results, so that we can all be confident that no one is being exploited in that way?

[Mel Stride]

HMRC can already investigate when it suspects the kind of abuse to which the hon. Lady alludes. To be specific, if HMRC opens an inquiry into whether PAYE or NICs are being operated correctly, it will be able to ask the employer or the troncmaster how they have recorded service charges and tips and how those have been allocated, and trace them back even to which customers paid for them. The tools are there, the willingness is there and the evidence is there that HMRC is doing precisely what the hon. Lady would expect it to do in pursuing this matter.

[Stella Creasy]

Just so that we are all clear, because I can see that Government Members are also concerned that there may be abuse of the E24 guidelines—this is not about individual companies—will the Minister commit today to his officials doing an investigation on whether the E24 guidelines are being abused in the way that has been described and to reporting back to all of us in the House?

[Mel Stride]

As I just said to the hon. Lady, we can say in relation to any aspect of HMRC’s operation or any of the rules that it is there to clamp down on that we want regular reporting and all the rest of it. The point is that as a Ministry, the Treasury is there to have strategic oversight of HMRC and to ensure that it is behaving in an appropriate way and chasing down tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance in whatever form they may appear, including the forms that she has raised. We will continue to do just that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Lady for her further point. I guess it comes down to interpretation. It seems to me that if it is not reasonably practical for a person or company to use electronic communications, the reliability of the service—another way of describing the point she raised—would be an important part of the judgment that would be made.

The clause continues with “Further exemptions”. Proposed new paragraph 15(1) states:

“The Commissioners may by regulations make provision for further exemptions.”

New paragraph 15(1) states:

“The exemptions for which provision may be made include exemptions based on income or other financial criteria.”

There is therefore a recognition in the Bill that not only do we need to get it right for the current circumstances, but we need the flexibility to be ready for any circumstances that might present themselves and which we have not considered at this stage. Those would need to be addressed further down the line.

For those who can go digital but require additional assistance, HMRC will continue to provide a diverse range of digital support, including webinars, helplines and YouTube videos, to help them meet the requirements of making tax digital.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North also seeks to provide for a phased implementation period, with the commencement of each new stage requiring approval by the House. We have already revised the implementation to start with businesses that report quarterly, and stakeholders are operating on the basis of the new timeline. We are phasing in the implementation by piloting the changes and by starting with mandation only for VAT and those above the VAT threshold. The secondary legislation required to lay out the detailed operation of MTD will be laid before the House in due course, offering Members a further opportunity to scrutinise our plans and consider our proposals.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow has tabled an amendment to require HMRC to publish an assessment of the effect of our exit from the European Union on MTD for VAT for small businesses. HMRC wants to give businesses plenty of time to adapt to MTD and is allowing for a full year of piloting the changes before mandation applies and before the UK leaves the European Union. If businesses wish to begin keeping their records digitally before we leave the EU, they will be able to do so.

The hon. Lady raised specific issues in respect of VAT and the 13th directive. The Government do not consider there to be an MTD issue here. MTD is about how records are kept and reported, rather than the nature of the VAT regime itself. The regulations will be consistent with the requirements of the 13th VAT directive, but if she has specific concerns, HMRC will be happy to look into them.

[Stella Creasy]

I am happy to clarify. At the moment, the intra-country VAT scheme is administered online, which makes it relatively simple for people in the UK to reclaim VAT they have incurred in other countries. As we know, the 13th directive requires every single other country to come up with its own VAT scheme, so there is a question about the compliance of different schemes with our scheme. If we have a digitised system, it needs to be able to interact with 27 other countries’ VAT schemes, rather than one EU-wide scheme. Has the Minister’s Department done any work on how the other 27 schemes will interact with our online scheme, so that businesses can be assured of the frictionless transfer that his Government so often promise on these issues?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady raises a very specific point within what is a large set of negotiations on all the issues of customs, excise and VAT. She will be aware that a customs and excise Bill will be presented to Parliament fairly shortly.

[Stella Creasy]

I have looked at the Minister’s White Paper, and it does not mention the 13th directive at all. If he could clarify that a second White Paper will address this issue with the 13th directive, I am sure that many small businesses would be relieved.

[Mel Stride]

As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, the White Paper sets out that the Bill will be a framework Bill. The purpose of the Bill will be to ensure we can enact through legislation—largely secondary legislation—whatever arrangements we arrive at as a consequence of the negotiations we are in the middle of. It is not my position here today to prejudge exactly where we will end up on VAT, but I can reassure the hon. Lady that all the preparations and legislation will be in place to accommodate in as frictionless a manner as possible—as she rightly says—the exercise of VAT between ourselves and our former European partners, as well as customs at the borders and all the other important issues that will arise once we leave the European Union.

[Stella Creasy]

The Minister is being incredibly generous. I hope he will forgive me; sometimes I must feel like a bear of very little brain on these issues. The 13th directive is the manner by which EU countries deal with non-EU countries’ VAT claims. It is an immovable part of the post-Brexit landscape, as I am sure the Minister agrees. Can he clarify that it is the 13th directive that his Department is engaging with? He said that the White Paper was a framework document. Will the customs union legislation deal with the 13th directive, or does he think there will somehow be a completely different scheme? I know that the White Paper talks about innovation, but it seems a bit pie in the sky to suggest that the 13th directive will not be part of this. Why is he not talking about it?

Finance Bill (Fourth sitting)

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 19th October 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Mel Stride]

Clause 33 and schedule 10 introduce the final element of this historic package of non-dom reforms. As with the clauses that we have just discussed, it was our intention to include these provisions in the previous Finance Bill, and we are pleased to be able to introduce the changes from April 2017 as we originally intended. The changes will ensure that non-domiciled individuals who hold UK residential property through an overseas structure are liable for inheritance tax on that property, in the same way as UK residents.

The basic inheritance tax position is that a non-UK-domiciled individual is liable for UK inheritance tax only on the property in their estate that is situated in the UK. That has been the case since inheritance tax was first introduced.

However, it has long been fairly common practice for some individuals to take deliberate steps to avoid tax on homes they hold in the United Kingdom. Instead of owning UK residential properties directly in their own names, they set up an overseas company or partnership that has legal ownership of the property. They will often use overseas trusts as part of those structures. The effect of doing so is that the non-domiciled individual is no longer a UK homeowner; instead they own shares in an overseas company or an interest in an overseas partnership. In other words, by changing the structure of the way they hold UK assets—UK property is transformed into overseas property—they are no longer subject to UK inheritance tax.

The Government do not believe it is fair that non-doms with residential property in the UK can avoid paying UK inheritance tax in that way. That is why we are making changes to ensure that, from now on, they will pay the same tax as everybody else. The changes made by clause 33 and schedule 10 will ensure that individuals domiciled overseas pay inheritance tax on UK residential properties they hold through overseas structures. They will do so by looking through the overseas structures to the underlying UK property, bringing any share or interest into the scope of inheritance tax, even if those shares are overseas. In other words, the clause will ensure that an inheritance tax charge will arise wherever the value of such structures is derived from a residential property in the UK.

The clause closes a long-standing loophole that has allowed non-domiciled individuals to structure their assets to avoid inheritance tax on their UK homes. This change will ensure that non-dom individuals with residential property in the United Kingdom are treated the same way as everyone else, raising an estimated £250 million over the next four years.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Having heard the Minister make a compelling case about the importance of ensuring that non-doms do not avoid paying tax, I look forward to the debate that we will have on new clause 2, which raises exactly the same issues about the treatment of commercial property as a way for non-doms to avoid residential property taxes. I look forward to the Minister supporting the new clause accordingly.

[Mel Stride]

Like the hon. Lady, I cannot wait to get to the matter at hand.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 10 agreed to.

Clause 34

Employment income provided through third parties

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