Cookies: We use cookies to give you the best possible experience on our site. By continuing to use the site you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more
House of Commons Hansard
x
Public Bill Committees
16 January 2018

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fifth sitting)

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: † Sir Roger Gale, Albert Owen

† Blackman, Kirsty (Aberdeen North) (SNP)

† Burghart, Alex (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)

† Carden, Dan (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)

† Chalk, Alex (Cheltenham) (Con)

† Clarke, Mr Simon (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)

† Dodds, Anneliese (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)

† Dowd, Peter (Bootle) (Lab)

† George, Ruth (High Peak) (Lab)

† Graham, Luke (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)

† Kerr, Stephen (Stirling) (Con)

† Lee, Ms Karen (Lincoln) (Lab)

† Maclean, Rachel (Redditch) (Con)

† Philp, Chris (Croydon South) (Con)

† Pidcock, Laura (North West Durham) (Lab)

† Rutley, David (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Smith, Jeff (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)

† Stride, Mel (Financial Secretary to the Treasury)

† Thewliss, Alison (Glasgow Central) (SNP)

† Whately, Helen (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)

Colin Lee, Jyoti Chandola, Gail Bartlett, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Tuesday 16 January 2018

(Morning)

[Sir Roger Gale in the Chair]

Finance (No. 2) Bill

(Except clause 8; clause 33 and schedule 9; clauses 40 and 41 and schedule 11; new clauses or new schedules relating to the income tax treatment of armed forces’ accommodation allowances, the bank levy, stamp duty land tax, the effect of the Bill on equality, or the effect of the Bill on tax avoidance or evasion)

Clause 30

Reduction of relief in cases where losses relieved sideways etc

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

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 31 stand part.

New clause 13—Review of effectiveness of limit to double taxation relief

“(1) No later than 31 March 2019, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects of the limit to double taxation relief made by section 30.

(2) The review under this section must consider—

(a) the effects of the change on annual revenue, and—

(b) the size and type of companies benefiting from the relief and the impact of the changes on them.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons the report of the review under this section as soon as practicable after its completion.”

This new clause provides for a review of the new limit for double taxation relief available to companies for foreign tax paid on income of a foreign permanent establishment.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

Good morning, Sir Roger. As ever, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

Clauses 30 and 31 will ensure that companies operating overseas cannot benefit from tax relief twice for the same loss. Many UK companies operate overseas through branches. To prevent double taxation on the profits of those branches—tax payable both in the UK and overseas—rules exist that provide relief in the UK for foreign tax paid. However, we are aware that some companies with foreign branches set losses incurred by those branches against the profits of other overseas group companies, rather than against the future profits of the branch. As a result, foreign tax is paid on future branch profits without taking into account past losses. That foreign tax is then used to claim double tax relief against UK tax on the branch profits.

Relieving foreign losses in that way creates an unfair outcome for the UK Exchequer. UK companies effectively get tax relief twice in the UK—once as a deduction from their taxable UK profits for the loss, and again by way of double tax relief. Clause 30 will address that by restricting double tax relief when the losses of an overseas branch have been used to relieve foreign tax paid by other overseas group companies. The clause will stop companies exploiting the UK’s double tax relief system to disadvantage unfairly the UK Exchequer. The measure will apply only to future claims for double tax relief. However, to be effective and protect significant revenues, it will apply where losses have already been relieved against the profits of other group companies.

The Opposition’s new clause 13 calls for a statutory review of the impact of that restriction of double tax relief. I think it would be useful, in response, to review the processes and track record of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in this area. First, the costings of the measure were prepared by HMRC’s central analytical team, which specialises in quantifying the impact of changes to tax legislation. Secondly, HMRC has significant experience in amending tax legislation to restrict opportunities for companies unfairly to reduce the tax they pay. For example, an amendment to the double taxation relief for loan relationships income in the 2014 Finance Act successfully protected tax revenue. Thirdly, HMRC regularly carries out reviews of tax legislation to ensure that it continues to meet its objectives, and the assessment of tax receipts is an important part of those reviews. The Opposition’s proposed review would not add to that analysis, and it is therefore unnecessary.

Clause 31 will amend the targeted anti-avoidance rule, which protects against certain ways of artificially creating or increasing a double tax relief claim. At present, the obligation to apply the TAAR lies with HMRC, not with the taxpayer. That puts HMRC at a disadvantage. In some cases, HMRC does not have sufficient information to identify, within the relevant statutory time limit, whether the TAAR is applicable. To address that, we are updating the double taxation relief TAAR to align it with more recent TAARs. The clause will remove the requirement for HMRC to give notice that the TAAR is being applied. Instead, the onus will be on the taxpayer to consider, during their self-assessment, whether the TAAR is applicable. We are also slightly extending the scope of the TAAR to ensure that it applies to double taxation relief schemes that involve transactions across a group.

Clauses 30 and 31 will ensure that companies pay a fair amount of tax in the UK and will protect significant tax revenue. I therefore urge the Committee to support them.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

It is good to be here under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I appreciate the Minister’s explanation of clauses 30 and 31, but the Opposition request a review of their effectiveness in deterring the inappropriate use of double taxation relief, particularly as they relate both to funds received by the Exchequer and to the companies potentially affected by them.

Colleagues will be aware that, as the Minister said, double taxation arrangements have been under discussion for an extremely long time—effectively since the beginning of globalisation, if we take that term as referring to the proliferation of multinational companies. The international finance conference in Brussels in 1920 raised the need to consider the impact of double taxation on firms, and from 1923 to 1927 some of the first agreements to avoid double taxation came into force. Such agreements have been under continual discussion in more recent years within the OECD, as have been provisions to prevent the contrary: double non-taxation, which we are discussing today.

The extent of double non-taxation is believed by many commentators to be extremely significant, which is part of the reason why the Opposition are not convinced by claims that the tax gap has recently reduced; that tax gap does not include international profit shifting, such as that obtained by manipulating double taxation rules. That is why Labour’s tax transparency and enforcement programme offers a series of measures to deal with profit shifting.

The measures under discussion follow on from attempts made in the 2009 Finance Bill to clarify measures in the Finance Act 2005 that examine double taxation relief specifically for banks. That Act limited credit for foreign tax paid on trade receipts of a bank to no more than the corporation tax arising on the relevant part of the trade profits. Changes were made after the Act to prevent income being artificially diverted to non-banking companies in bank groups. That loophole, which was being exploited, was shut down by ensuring that the restriction applied to all relevant receipts going across a group. Such profit shifting was therefore prevented. The clauses under discussion will offer a similar tightening for non-bank companies, as well as other alterations and restrictions on the use of double taxation relief.

The Opposition are asking for a review for a variety of reasons. First, it would be helpful to understand from the banking sector’s experience whether the new rules are likely to have a positive effect, and what the magnitude of that effect is anticipated to be. Secondly, alternative approaches are available, and it would be helpful to assess the Government’s approach against those. In particular, I understand that the US has adopted a different approach to limiting the benefits of relief from double taxation. The UK’s approach, which I accept is in common with the OECD’s, is to focus the dissuasion from using an appropriate double taxation relief on the transaction and its nature. By contrast, the US approach relates to those entities that can benefit from favourable tax treatment; it focuses on the entity, rather than the transaction. As I discovered when looking at the debates on the 2003 agreement between the UK and the US on double taxation and non-taxation, the two approaches have to come together when we have a treaty with the US on tax matters. It would be helpful to know whether the Government have considered the apparently more restrictive approach adopted by the US.

It would also be helpful to know more about the removal of the counteraction notice specified in the clauses. Colleagues may remember—though they probably have more important things to think about—that in the discussion on hybrid mismatches, I asked whether a counteraction notice was still required. I do not recall receiving a totally clear answer, although the Minister offered many other helpful clarifications. Clause 31 removes the requirement to give a notice to trigger the double taxation relief targeted anti-avoidance rule, as the Minister mentioned. That seems to follow an approach of amending provisions to remove such notices when the measures concerned are otherwise under review, as part of a wholesale approach to reviewing the measures. The explanatory notes state that the approach follows that adopted under new TAARs, but it is not clear that there has been a more holistic investigation by the Government of this issue. It would be interesting for us to know whether the Government plan to review the existing use of any remaining requirements for counteraction notices in the area of international profit shifting.

The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but the principle seems to have been accepted that such counteraction notices are no longer necessary before HMRC is able to act, at least in relation to this kind of international artificial profit shifting. He gave us quite a strong rationale for that when he indicated the problems with having to issue a notice when time limits can be relatively tight: it could impact on HMRC’s ability to take appropriate action against those engaging in international profit shifting.

It would be useful to know whether there is a broader review of the use of counteraction notices in this regard, but as I said, we are also calling for a review of the effectiveness or otherwise of the measures in deterring the manipulation of double taxation relief, and of whether the measures will deal with the international profit shifting that existing practices seem to be promoting.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

I thank the hon. Lady for her characteristically thorough dissection of the clause. She gave us something of a history lesson about double taxation agreements going back to the 1920s, before we came into the era of the OECD and more recent activities.

This is not directly relevant to the clause, but the hon. Lady mentioned the tax gap and the veracity or otherwise of the figure for it. The figure is produced by HMRC on an annual basis and audited by the National Audit Office. It is a statistic described by the International Monetary Fund as one of the most robust of its kind in the world. We are very proud of the fact that we have, at 6%, one of the lowest tax gaps in our history.

Interestingly, the hon. Lady introduced the subject of the movement of losses out of branches overseas by way of a discussion of the profits under the banking arrangements, and the shifting from banking to non-banking entities as an approach to avoiding tax. That approach, which certain corporations have taken to avoid tax, is long-established and lies at the heart of the measures that we, the OECD and others have been pursuing to clamp down on avoidance.

This measure is very important. As I described, overseas entities with branches are able to move losses into other overseas entities and claim a tax benefit there, but equally gain a double tax benefit with the UK authorities by way of double tax relief and the impact of the losses on profits that would otherwise fall to corporation tax. We do not believe that the review that new clause 13 calls for is necessary, largely for the reasons I gave in my opening remarks, and in particular because we keep all these measures under review. Indeed, the measures are a product of a review of earlier approaches to clamping down on avoidance, evasion and non-compliance.

The hon. Lady raised several questions that I will attempt to address. The first was whether we had considered the US model and focusing more on entities, which is an interesting point. I would be interested to take any representation from her, and to look at that in more detail with my officials. I do not have a comprehensive answer to her point at the moment, but my door is open for us to look at that in greater detail.

The hon. Lady also mentioned the operation of counteraction notices. As she recognised, the main thrust of the changes to the TAAR is to ensure we do not end up in a situation in which one might reasonably expect HMRC not to understand that something untoward was going on, and in which, by the time it came to the activity, it was out of time. That is the critical point. Once again, if there are further issues of a more detailed or granular nature that the hon. Lady would like to raise with me, I would be very happy indeed to have a look at those. On that basis, I hope we can accept the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32

Double taxation arrangements specified by Order in Council

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 32, page 23, line 37, at end insert—

“(2A) After section 6 of TIOPA 2010 (the effect given by section 2 to double taxation arrangements), insert—

“6A Review of changes made by section 32 of Finance Act 2018

(1) Within twelve months of the passing of the Finance Act 2018, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects of the changes made by section 32 of that Act on the operation of double taxation arrangements.

(2) The review under this section must consider in particular—

(a) the extent to which those changes facilitate UK law giving effect to the Multilateral Instrument in a way which coheres with the principles of Policy Coherence for Development;

(b) the extent to which those changes facilitate UK law giving effect to the Multilateral Instrument in a way which coheres with the UN Model Tax Treaty;

(c) the effect of those changes on the number of disputes decided by arbitration;

(d) the counterparties in each such case;

(e) the outcome in each such case; and

(f) the effects of those changes on the public revenue of the United Kingdom.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons the report of the review under this section as soon as practicable after its completion.

(4) In this section—

“the Multilateral Instrument” means the Multilateral Treaty to Implement Tax Treaty related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting;

“the principles of Policy Coherence and Development” are to be interpreted in the light of relevant publications of the Organisation of Economic and Development Cooperation and of the 2011 Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation, the UN Millennium Declaration and the 2010 UN Millennium Development Goals Summit; and

“the UN Model Tax Treaty” means the United Nations Model Double Taxation Convention between Developed and Developing Countries published in 2011.””

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 55, in clause 32, page 24, line 3, leave out subsection (4).

This amendment removes the retrospective effect of the foregoing provisions of Clause 32.

Clause 32 stand part.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

This is about the arrangements for the incorporation of the multilateral instrument, if I am correct.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

Correct.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

I am looking forward to more detailed explanations on this part of the Bill, because they are enormously important. Our amendment 54 requests a review of the operation of the provisions enabling the MLI’s implementation in the UK, and especially of the extent to which it promotes the principles of policy coherence for development, and the outcomes that would have been produced had the UN’s model tax treaty been used instead.

The MLI is, in many ways, a milestone for international tax law. Rather than being an amending protocol of the type we might have seen before in wholesale changes to international treaties, the MLI provides an instrument to swiftly and consistently implement a range of standards in taxation in existing treaties. It also provides the means, through the OECD, of monitoring its implementation—and, potentially, mechanisms for the future adaptations of treaties; it is important that we consider those, and I will come back to them.

Given that those bodies looking to engage in “treaty shopping” and their advisers are often highly sophisticated international actors that will readily search out new loopholes, the design of the MLI, which makes possible future alterations and provisions to deal with new tax challenges, is surely to be welcomed. I understand that the UK was one of the first 26 signatories to the MLI. There are now 69—more have probably signed since I looked that up. I understand that a UK Treasury official chaired the OECD working group that determined many of its provisions.

The MLI includes six articles to address treaty abuse. Many of them are already in accordance with the UK’s approach to international tax matters. One element of the MLI that seems particularly propitious is the principal purposes test,

“a subjective test based on an assessment of the intentions behind a transaction or arrangement”,

intended to rule out the obtaining of any benefits from a treaty if those benefits are not in accordance with the object and purpose of that treaty. That amounts to a general power, which could be useful for many countries encountering abuse.

In that connection, however, it is surely necessary for tax authorities to be sufficiently staffed, both overall and in terms of expertise, to make any accusation under these powers stick in court, not least if that court is a private international one, which the UK appears to have committed itself to by accepting multilateral binding arbitration. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister whether he feels that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Treasury possess sufficient staff with sufficient knowledge of and expertise on international arbitration for our country to be able to defend its interests adequately, should the need arise. As well as measures concerning treaty abuse, the MLI also introduces uniform approaches —or rather, approaches that should be uniform in their outcomes, if not in specific details—to dispute resolution, permanent establishment and hybrid mismatches.

While in many respects there are very positive elements of the MLI, other elements might raise concerns. I will focus the rest of my remarks on those, and will be interested to hear the Minister’s response. First, the UK appears, in its adoption of the MLI, to have ruled in using mandatory binding arbitration where mutual agreement procedures have failed to produce an acceptable outcome within two to three years. Following the discussion last week of the use of mandatory binding arbitration in the UK’s new tax treaty with Lesotho, it was interesting to find, when I was reading the UK’s MLI position paper last night, that we already have mandatory binding arbitration in 18 of our tax treaties, including those concluded with Algeria, Armenia, Albania, Kosovo and Tajikistan, as well as a number concluded with higher-income countries. The UK appears to apply the principle already in relation to developing countries, but it strikes me that we have not had much discussion of that in the House.

Mandatory binding arbitration involves both parties to a dispute agreeing to have it dealt with not through normal judicial mechanisms, but through arbiters who possess some kind of expertise—in this case, expertise in international tax matters. There are considerable problems with that approach for developing countries. I think that that is one reason why developing countries in the UN have rejected the approach. Many of those countries lack the resources necessary for adequate representations to be made to an expert arbiter.

There are also, of course, significant issues in relation to transparency. Concerns about the use of investor-state dispute resolution—a form of binding arbitration—were raised repeatedly during discussions about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, the EU-US trade treaty, much of the time because of worries that that would enable disputes to be resolved privately, without appropriate democratic oversight. Is another version of that potentially being hard-wired into our processes because of the incorporation of the MLI?

The second worry about the UK’s incorporation of the MLI relates to the fact that, overall, the OECD approach to tax treaties has traditionally been less favourable than the UN approach, most would argue, when it comes to developing countries. I would underline the points that I attempted to make in the discussion last week about the tax treaty with Lesotho. As a nation, we are, rightly, providing development aid to many countries. If we then facilitate a situation in which British businesses, which may or may not be very well run—this is independent of the character of those businesses—are able to accrue profits back to the UK without those profits being adequately taxed, surely we are just giving via Peter what we are taking away via Paul.

There are, therefore, concerns about whether, in our approach to tax treaties, we have been following the right trajectory when it comes to developing countries. In some respects, we have followed the UN model, but with the new incorporation of the MLI, we will be hard-wiring in the OECD approach, so I wanted to ask a few questions, just comparing the UN model with the OECD one. That is exactly what we ask for in our request for a review: we ask for the OECD approach to be contrasted with the UN one.

The UN model convention generally favours greater retention of so-called source country taxing rights under a tax treaty—the taxation rights of the host country of investment—as compared with those of the residence country of the investor. In that connection, we need to know whether, from the Government’s point of view, the OECD’s MLI incorporates or, on the contrary, avoids the problems that seem to beset the OECD model tax treaty when compared with the UN model treaty.

For example, when it comes to permanent establishment, the UN approach seems more favourable to those nations where an international actor has a temporary activity, which would of course tend to be the case for the developing country when it comes to treaties concluded between a developing and an industrialised country. We could talk about building sites, for example. The OECD model treaty requires building sites to have been present for more than a year, whereas the UN permits that for just over six months, so obviously the UN approach is more restrictive, in the interests of developing countries. The UN model also covers the provision of services and stocks of goods or merchandise and is less permissive when it comes to contracted agents—brokers and so on—who might be coming from a developed country and working in a developing country.

The UN model treaty is also much more restrictive against profit shifting, from what I can see. It states that the deduction of expenses is allowed for tax purposes, but continues:

“However, no such deduction shall be allowed in respect of amounts, if any, paid (otherwise than towards reimbursement of actual expenses) by the permanent establishment to the head office of the enterprise or any of its other offices, by way of royalties, fees or other similar payments in return for the use of patents or other rights, or by way of commission, for specific services performed or for management, or, except in the case of a banking enterprise, by way of interest on moneys lent to the permanent establishment.”

When it comes to mandatory binding arbitration—this is an issue that I will focus on—the UN model treaty offers alternatives based on different approaches to implementing the OECD approach to mandatory binding arbitration, or retaining just the mutual agreement procedure, which was of course first set out by the UN treaty itself.

A number of additional questions require answers, if possible. First, will the Minister inform the Committee about any discussions that the Treasury, or other Government bodies, have had with our Crown dependencies and overseas territories about signing up to the MLI? I note that Guernsey and the Isle of Man were signatories as of December 2017, but other CDs and OTs were not. I know that there is a regular dialogue about tax issues with those jurisdictions, so it would be helpful to know whether they are likely to sign up to the MLI.

I was a bit confused about why Saudi Arabia seems to be mentioned in the UK’s position paper for the MLI. The UK had to submit a position paper detailing the extent to which it is resisting tax treaties with MLI-signing countries, and the extent to which those would have to be changed. Saudi Arabia cropped up, but I do not know whether it is a signatory, so perhaps that could be clarified. That is obviously very significant, given the amount of two-way economic interaction between our countries.

I have some final questions about the relationship between the incorporation of the MLI, and our general debates and discussions on concluding double taxation treaties. As I said, the MLI could be amended in future to take into account new, potentially devious attempts to get around international tax loopholes, which is surely one of its strengths. This is my fault, but I have not been able to find out whether there was an appropriate parliamentary discussion when the UK first signed up to this agreement. However, if there are to be future changes to the MLI, I wonder whether a proper discussion on that will be held in the House. The almost automaticity of the instrument is one of its strengths, but that must be accompanied by appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. Can we have a commitment to ensure a proper discussion on that?

I am also interested in the interaction between this MLI and the tax treaty that we were due to discuss on relations between the UK and Kyrgyzstan. We did not have that debate on Monday as initially scheduled, but the treaty does not include the anti-abuse provisions that are promoted by the MLI if both parties list it as a covered agreement—I assume we will have done that because we seem to have listed all our double taxation treaties as covered agreements within the position paper submitted to the MLI process. We also seem to have differences on the use of mandatory binding arbitration, and it would be helpful to understand the Government’s view on that, particularly with developing countries. How does the incorporation of the MLI relate to those issues?

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

Clause 32 makes changes to ensure that full effect can be given to the multilateral convention to implement tax treaty-related measures to prevent base erosion and profit shifting, and the UK signed the MLI on 7 June 2017. Double taxation agreements are bilateral agreements between the UK and other countries that aim to ensure that profits income and gains are taxed only once. They help to develop the UK’s economic relationships with other countries, and other countries’ economic relationship with the United Kingdom. DTAs provide certainty for businesses operating across borders, and enhance co-operation in tax matters, supporting the growth of a more global economy.

The OECD/G20 base erosion and profit shifting project—BEPS—recommended a number of changes to DTAs. Those included minimum standards on preventing tax avoidance through the abuse of tax treaties, and improving the resolution of tax disputes. To enable those important improvements to DTAs to be made as soon as possible, more than 100 jurisdictions, in a group chaired by the United Kingdom, drew up the multilateral instrument. The group adopted the text of the MLI in November 2016. It has now been signed—to update the hon. Member for Oxford East—by more than 70 countries, which is the latest information I have.

To implement improvements to the UK DTAs, the MLI must be given effect in our domestic law. This measure ensures that the existing powers for giving effect to DTAs in UK law, which have previously been used only to give effect to bilateral arrangements, can also be used to give full effect to the MLI.

The hon. Lady made a very sensible point about parliamentary scrutiny of the MLI. The measure simply ensures that we have the appropriate powers to bring the MLI into force in UK law. However, that would be by a draft affirmative statutory instrument. After the Bill has become an Act, Parliament will have time to scrutinise the MLI.

The existing powers give effect to arrangements made with foreign territories with a view to affording relief from double taxation. Concerns have been raised in some quarters that an agreement that operates primarily to restrict relief is not made with a view to affording relief from double taxation. Doubts have also been expressed about whether the existing power is sufficiently clear that agreements can delegate functions to the public authorities of the territories.

The Government are not persuaded by these concerns but wish to put the matter beyond doubt. The clause ensures that the improvements made by the MLI can, subject to the views of Parliament, be implemented quickly and with certainty. The changes made by clause 32 will clarify that the existing power for giving effect to international tax agreements covers any arrangements modifying the effect of existing arrangements. It also clarifies that the provisions of arrangements can delegate functions to public authorities and signatories—HMRC in the case of the United Kingdom.

Turning to the two Opposition amendments, I reiterate that the changes made by clause 32 merely clarify the existing power for giving effect to international tax agreements, thereby ensuring that Parliament can, if it chooses, give full effect to the MLI—an objective that I hope Opposition Members will join me in supporting. The Government’s intention is to lay the draft Order in Council to which the MLI will be scheduled as soon as possible, but clearly after the passage of the Bill, at which point Members will have the opportunity to debate the MLI in full, as I have said.

None the less, I will take this opportunity to respond to some of the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Oxford East. First, on the suggestion that the multilateral instrument should be given effect in a way that complies with the principles of policy coherence and the UN model treaty, the text of the MLI has already been negotiated and agreed with more than 100 countries, including a significant number of developing countries, which were able to input into its development. It is therefore not possible for the Government to make changes unilaterally—an approach that some might have been suggesting.

However, it is true that the text contains certain options and permits states to make reservations against certain provisions. Following consultation with business and NGOs, the Government propose to use this flexibility to adopt all the provisions contained in the MLI that were deemed by those negotiating the text to be particularly important for preventing base erosion and profit shifting—the minimum standards. This includes provisions combating the abuse of tax treaties. We believe that this approach of bearing down on international tax avoidance will help global economic development for both the United Kingdom and developing countries, in line with the principles of policy coherence.

Secondly, to respond to the hon. Lady’s concern about the Government’s proposal to adopt the mandatory binding arbitration provision for resolving double tax disputes contained in the MLI, the Government believe that arbitration is important for ensuring that double tax disputes are resolved. Mandatory arbitration benefits tax authorities and taxpayers alike by creating greater tax certainty and preventing double taxation. This is beneficial for all cross-border transactions. However, it should be noted that the MLI will amend the UK’s bilateral DTAs to include arbitration only where our treaty partners have also chosen to adopt the arbitration provision—an important point in the context of the hon. Lady’s remarks. There can be no suggestion that any country has been forced into its adoption.

Thirdly, in response to the request for a costing, given a process by which the multilateral instrument will come into effect at different times in different states, it would be very difficult to quantify the effects of changes in public revenue that arise from the implementation of the MLI more generally. It is very difficult to provide sensible estimates of the revenue effects of our tax treaties. Concluding a tax treaty is not a zero-sum game, and possible short-term revenue effects are augmented and balanced in the longer term by increased activities, as companies and others respond to the more favourable business climate that tax treaties provide. However, those effects are hard to quantify and successive Governments have never attempted that. Finally, retrospective effect is necessary to ensure that the provision does not create uncertainty in relation to pre-existing international agreements.

With regard to whether HMRC is sufficiently resourced and has appropriate staff to be on top of international arbitration issues, let me make two points. One is the exemplary record that HMRC generally has in this area. We often talk about the £160 billion that has been brought in or protected by clamping down on avoidance, evasion and non-compliance since 2010, and the additional resources provided to HMRC, including £170 million in the most recent Budget, to ensure that it is on top of such issues. My second point is on international arbitration. What we are looking at with the MLI is an extension of that approach rather than a fresh introduction. HMRC would not have to gear up for something completely new; it would be a matter of extending the occasions on which international arbitration was entered into.

The hon. Lady also asked whether HMRC or the Treasury had had discussions with the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. I will be happy to look into that and let her know what I discover. I imagine that such discussions would have been held. We have very close relationships with the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. The hon. Lady mentioned the case of Saudi Arabia, which had appeared in the position paper. She asked whether they had finally become a signatory to the MLI. I do not immediately know the answer but I will again revert to her, not only with an answer to her specific question but with some of the background, explaining, if they do not appear, why they have not done so.

I think most other points were covered in my earlier remarks. On that basis, I hope that we can agree to the clause standing part of the Bill.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

I am grateful to the Minister for those enormously helpful clarifications. I was particularly pleased to hear his commitment to ensuring that the draft affirmative statutory instrument will be tabled in the House and that we will have a proper chance to debate it. As part of that discussion, I would urge him to ensure that additional information is provided on the Government’s reasoning around adopting a number of the provisions that are within the OECD but not the UN approach.

I fully accept that the OECD approach is supported by a large number of countries; that is absolutely right. None the less, as the Minister himself stated, there are then choices to be made by signatories to the MLI about how to interpret different elements. Those choices can make that approach either more like the UN’s or more like traditionally the OECD’s.

As the Minister said, mandatory binding arbitration is an approach that countries can decide to adopt or otherwise. It was positive to hear that that will be adopted only when both countries, as signatories to a double tax treaty, wish to adopt it. I am interested to know, first, on what basis we have already chosen to adopt mandatory binding arbitration or otherwise. I would again point to the inconsistency between the tax treaty agreed last week on Lesotho, and that which was proposed, albeit not yet discussed, around Kyrgyzstan, which seem to have very different approaches to mandatory binding arbitration. Why is there that difference?

Secondly, it would be helpful for us to assess the claim that mandatory binding arbitration promotes certainty and the ability to tax appropriately for all countries if we saw what some of the outcomes from existing cases subject to mandatory binding arbitration have been, particularly for our country’s ability to retain the revenue that is its due. I have not yet seen that kind of consolidated examination of outcomes from mandatory binding arbitration, and it would be very useful for us to have that in relation to our country and the impacts on our ability to collect revenue, and for developing countries as well. We need that before we can assess whether we want to adopt this in a more wholesale manner. The Minister is absolutely correct to say that we already have it in operation—I mentioned that before—but we need to have more detail.

One final point—I am sorry, but I managed to miss this in my previous remarks—is that it would be helpful for us to understand what transatlantic discussions the UK has been having with the US around the adoption of the MLI. It has not yet adopted the MLI and, sadly, some elements within the US have resisted the OECD’s action in this area—a lot of the time for totally unnecessary, politicised reasons—but it would be useful to know whether the US is likely to adopt this approach. That is because when we talk about double taxation, much of the time we will be talking about multinational companies that have the US as their host country or source country, and when those companies then conduct operations in the UK we need to be able to know that we can protect revenue from them.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

On the hon. Lady’s point around the different models—the OECD and the UN models—a number of countries have signed up to the MLI, and implicit in those discussions will be the kinds of issues that she has touched on, but it might be of interest to her that the Government do expect the UN to update them on the treaty in the light of what has been agreed within the MLI, which clearly we will be keeping a close eye on.

I said earlier that I did not have an answer to the hon. Lady’s specific question, but I now do—through a form of divine inspiration known as the officials of Her Majesty’s Treasury. Saudi Arabia is indeed not a signatory to the MLI initiative, but we hope that it will be signing in future, at which point we would intend that our treaty be amended accordingly to accommodate that.

On the hon. Lady’s point about mandatory binding arbitration, one of the points that I should have made earlier is in the context of how fair or otherwise this is on the countries with which we enter into those particular arrangements. Once arbitration is entered into, two arbitrators are appointed—one by each country—so this is not a stacked jury in any sense, and it will be for them, impartially and properly, through the normal processes, to come to their conclusions.

The issue of transparency and the disclosure of the outcomes of arbitrations really falls within the area of tax confidentiality. Inevitably, within those arrangements where companies, and indeed eventually individuals, are involved, it is important that we maintain the rigorous tradition that we have in our country of complete impartiality when it comes to HMRC, our tax affairs, investigations, arbitrations and so on.

The hon. Lady asked specific questions about US policy, which is probably a stretch too far for me to reach on this occasion, but if she has specific questions that relate to UK Treasury interaction with the US as an overseas tax authority, I would be happy to consider any representations that she would like to make.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

I am grateful to the Minister for those clarifications. He rightly said that it is very important that HMRC conducts its affairs in a manner that is impartial between taxpayers and that is fair. That is absolutely right. However, we are surely not talking about anything that would threaten that impartiality when we talk about more transparency; we are not talking about the decisions themselves being altered, but rather the transparency around decisions that are taken. That would not affect the process leading up to those decisions being taken.

If there were concerns about this somehow negatively affecting taxpayers, I am sure that there could be some way of anonymising the results from different arbitration situations. However, I genuinely think it would be helpful for us, whatever side of the House we are on, to see more information about the use of that mechanism, because it can make a significant difference for taxpayers and, indeed, for our revenue.

Finally, on the difference between OECD and UN processes, it is absolutely right that some developing countries were involved in the OECD’s development of its approach. However, they were only observers—as we know, the OECD is a club of generally rich countries. Those developing country members were consultees, not full members. I look forward to seeing exactly that development of the UN model in the light of the OECD’s approach. Developing countries have full status in UN discussions, which they lack within the OECD process.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 6

16 January 2018

The Committee divided:

Ayes: 9
Noes: 10

Question accordingly negatived.

View Details

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35

Settlements: anti-avoidance etc

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

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 62, in schedule 10, page 142, line 40, at end insert

“87Q Review of taxation of capital payments received from a settlement

(1) Within six months of the passing of the Finance Act 2018, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects of the changes to this Chapter made by Schedule 10 to that Act.

(2) The review under this section must consider the effects of those changes on—

(a) the taxation regime for settlements, and

(b) anti-avoidance measures for settlements.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons the report of the review under this section as soon as practicable after its completion.”

This amendment requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effects of changes to TCGA 1992 made by the Bill in relation to the taxation of capital payments received from a settlement.

Amendment 63, in schedule 10, page 142, line 40, at end insert

“87Q Public register of capital payments received from settlements

(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must by regulations establish a register of capital payments received from settlements to which this Chapter applies within 12 months of the passing of the Finance Act 2018.

(2) A register established under subsection (1) shall record in relation to capital payments—

(a) the recipient beneficiary;

(b) the settlor; and

(c) the trustees of the settlement from which the capital payment is received.

(3) That part of the register containing information in paragraph (c) shall be made available to the public.”

(1A) In section 98(1), after “87”, insert “, 87Q”.”

This amendment creates an obligation for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to create a public register of trust beneficiaries, settlors, and trustees. It also amends section 98(1) of TCGA 1992 to expand, to include new section 87Q, the existing power for HMRC to require any person to provide information as they think necessary to fulfil certain sections of that Act.

Government amendments 2, 51 and 52, 5 to 27, 53, and 28 to 32.

That schedule 10 be the Tenth schedule to the Bill.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

Would it be appropriate for Opposition Members to speak to their amendment?

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

The short answer is no, because the clause stand part debate is the lead item on the agenda.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

I should have known that you were several steps ahead of me, Sir Roger. I totally understand and will therefore speak to the clause.

Clause 35 seeks to safeguard the integrity of our tax system by ensuring that it is not possible for an individual with an offshore trust to avoid paying UK tax on payments from that trust. The UK already has extensive anti-avoidance legislation in place to prevent individuals who hold offshore trusts from being able to avoid paying income tax or capital gains tax on the gains from those settlements. The UK’s far-reaching anti-avoidance rules mean that a UK-domiciled individual who sets up an offshore trust will pay tax on income and gains in that trust as they arise if they have any entitlement to the trust income or the underlying assets. That means that using an offshore trust does not deliver any tax advantage for most people living in the United Kingdom.

However, there are a small number of people who set up or benefit from an offshore trust, where tax is not due on income and gains as they arise in the trust; instead, tax is charged when moneys or benefits are taken from the trust. Typically these people are foreign domiciliaries—often referred to as non-doms—although there will be certain circumstances in which UK domiciles pay tax only when moneys or benefits are withdrawn, such as when the individual who set up the trust has died.

Where tax is charged on money or benefits taken from the trust, it is important that the legislation is effective in imposing a tax charge on the money or the benefit that is taken. However, a number of loopholes in these rules allow trustees to plan their arrangements carefully so that the beneficiary can obtain money or benefits without paying UK tax. I do not think that our tax system should allow people to live in the UK and not pay their fair share, and the Government, through this clause, are taking significant action against this contrived tax planning.

The first loophole removed by clause 35 concerns the way capital gains that accrue to offshore trusts are attributed to trust beneficiaries. Currently, UK resident beneficiaries are taxed when they receive a capital payment that results from the capital gain in the trust. However, UK beneficiaries can avoid tax on sums received from the trust if there are other beneficiaries of the trust and the trustees carefully plan how payments are made. This is because the current rules allow payments made to a beneficiary who is not UK-resident to be set against the gain that is taxed when later payments are made to UK residents. In some cases, this can mean that payments to UK beneficiaries are not taxed at all. Clause 35 stops this by no longer allowing payments made to non-residents to be treated as having been made from the trust’s capital gains. A similar rule already exists for trust income.

The second change deals with a capital gains tax loophole where an offshore trust makes capital payments to a close family member of the UK resident who set up the trust. Under the current rules, the fact that the payment is not directly given to the individual would mean they avoid any UK tax due on the payment or benefit from the trust. The new rules close this opportunity by treating such payments as if they were made directly to the UK resident who set up the trust, who will pay tax on the payment or benefit as if they had received it directly.

The third loophole that this clause closes is when a capital payment is made as part of an arrangement that routes the payment through a third party. Under the arrangement, the third party who receives the payment or benefit from the trust makes an onward gift of the sum received to the intended beneficiary. As things stand, this can enable the ultimate beneficiary to avoid paying tax on the payment or benefit as they should have done if made to them directly. The changes to the rules will prevent such arrangements from being effective for tax purposes by taxing the recipient of the gift as if the capital payment was made directly from the trust to them in the first instance. These rules apply if the recipient is resident in the United Kingdom, but it means that they are not able to avoid paying UK tax on income and gains made by the trust simply by routing payments through a third party.

Minor Government amendments to schedule 10— Government amendments 2, 5 to 32, and 51 to 53—amend new provisions in the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 to ensure that they work as intended. The amendments clarify that the provisions apply to both capital and income benefits and ensure that they will not result in income tax charges on non-UK resident beneficiaries. These amendments also ensure that no double tax charges arise and clarify how items will be deducted in respect of earlier charges under either the settlements benefits code or the transfer of assets code.

I will now turn to the Opposition amendments. Amendment 63 proposes the creation of a register of trust beneficiaries, settlors and trustees, with the register of trustees being public. I do not think there is any need to create a new register. From 26 June last year, any trust that generates a UK tax liability, regardless of where it is established, is required to register with HMRC. Trustees are required to provide detailed information about the trustees, settlors, beneficiaries and trust assets. This information is accessible to HMRC and law enforcement authorities, enabling them to draw connections between parties associated with relevant trusts. For compliance purposes, HMRC has the information it requires. The Government also believe strongly in taxpayer confidentiality. Making this register public would jeopardise that principle and it is something to which the Government cannot agree. In addition, HMRC already publishes data on a number of trusts with an income tax and/or capital gains tax liability during the year.

Amendment 62 seeks to introduce a review within six months of the date of this Bill being passed to consider the effects of the changes to the schedule, particularly the effects on tax avoidance in trusts. This clause is explicitly directed at reducing tax avoidance through trusts. It is legislation that has been consulted upon, having been published in draft in September, and the Government are confident that it will close the loopholes it targets. I therefore ask the Opposition not to press the amendment. I commend the clause and the Government’s amendments to the Committee.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

I will speak to both of our amendments, if that is acceptable to the Committee. I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction. As colleagues will know, these measures attempt to close loopholes within the Government’s new non-dom regime. From an Opposition point of view, this is rather frustrating, because we were concerned about many of these issues, particularly the exemption of offshore trusts from the non-dom regime. We are pleased that there has been some tightening, but of course we would like to see more.

We see in these measures new anti-avoidance provisions so that, as was mentioned, it will no longer be possible to wash out trust gains by payments to non-residents. On capital payments made to a close family member of a UK resident, there will capital gains tax and income tax. Where a non-resident beneficiary receives a distribution from a trust and then makes an onward gift of all or part of it, directly or indirectly, to a UK resident, the original payment will be taxed as if received by that UK recipient. Surely that is right and correct.

Although these measures, in and of themselves, do provide some sticking plaster, they do not fundamentally reform the non-dom regime in the manner we would wish to see. I should qualify that by stating that the submission to the Committee by the Institute of Chartered Accountants maintains that the Government’s promises are essentially greater than what they are delivering, even within their own terms. It maintains that the Government’s indication that the inadvertent remittance trap has been closed is not, in practice, fulfilled by these measures, and that such a trap could be continued. It would be helpful to hear the Minister’s assessment of whether the institute is correct in that regard.

We debated the overall provisions on non-doms at length when considering the previous Finance Bill, so I will not rehearse all the arguments now. We are talking about the 121,000 individuals who claimed non-dom status in 2014-15. Non-domiciled UK resident taxpayers account for about 85,000 of those people; the remaining 35,000 or so are non-UK residents. Obviously, those non-doms are still subject to different taxation arrangements from UK residents. That is a fundamental principle of difference, even though, yes, the Government have made changes. Again, I will not rehearse all the previous arguments.

Even the Government’s changes enable people, if they so wish, to have a 15-year wait before triggering the new arrangements, because they have to have been resident in the UK for 15 of the past 20 years in order to be considered UK domiciled and for their status to be changed. We do not feel that those arrangements are strict enough.

We are focusing on the use by some non-doms—obviously, for many people it is a legitimate status—of offshore tax arrangements, particularly trusts. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister about the extent of existing abuse that these measures attempt to deal with. Have the measures arisen because of experience with disclosure of tax-avoidance schemes, for example? If so, can he provide us with some evidence on that? Or have they arisen from cases that HMRC has settled out of court? It would be helpful to understand the magnitude of the problem before considering mechanisms to try to deal with it.

More generally, taxing trusts is a difficult challenge. In public policy terms, there are obviously no simple solutions. Trusts often raise issues relating to capital gains tax, inheritance tax and many other matters. I understand that in November the Government committed themselves to a large programme of activity—or at least a programme of activity—on trust simplification. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister what exactly has moved in that regard.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants has said that it would be willing to participate in that programme of activity, as I know would many other stakeholders. It would be useful to know how far that activity has progressed, because there are many calls for a fundamental overhaul in our approach to trusts, and we also need to change how we deal with offshore trusts. That is particularly the case with evidence of abuse, but not sufficiently systematic evidence; as I mentioned before, we need more of it. We have already discussed in the House Deutsche Bank’s use of trusts to enable bankers to dodge income tax on bonuses. HMRC managed to defeat that scheme, but there are other schemes in use today. Again, concerns about HMRC’s capacity might arise when we are talking about very complex tax matters.

To be clear, Labour opposed the exclusion of offshore trusts from non-doms rules in the first place, and we have made that point consistently. We made it in the debate on the ways and means resolutions for the previous Finance Bill, and then again on Second Reading and in the Public Bill Committee. We still think that exclusion is inappropriate, particularly given the generalised lack of transparency on trusts. We have already referred to the discussions that the Government are having with our Crown dependencies and overseas territories. I know that part of those discussions have been about the creation of registers of beneficial ownership—so far just for companies. That has not yet been fully fulfilled for some of those jurisdictions, but in any case it does not extend to trusts, and we believe that it should. It would be interesting to hear about any progress on that.

Labour is also calling for a public register of UK trusts. Our amendment seeks more transparency on the use of offshore trusts, at least as a start. I am sure that the Minister will mention concerns about the confidentiality of those using trusts, which always seems to be the response when we raise the issue. I have huge faith in the British civil service and think that it is very good at creating appropriately targeted regimes. If we look at how Companies House has developed its system for registration and transparency on company ownership and operation, we see that there is already a mechanism within the regime to prevent inappropriate disclosure that could damage those involved with a company. For example, if we were talking about a firm that breeds beagles for animal experimentation, which could be targeted by animal rights activists or extremists, providing its address could be inappropriate, so it is possible for Companies House to have a different disclosure regime for that company. We could create a similar arrangement for trusts. Surely that would be possible and appropriate.

The British Government will have to come to a position on this because of a matter that I have raised previously: the EU now has an agreement to have transparency for business-like trusts. The devil is in the detail, of course, because we could see gaming around what is then deemed to be business-like, as opposed to other types of trusts. I think that a regime that just excludes those trusts from full transparency where there could be harm to the beneficiaries would be more appropriate. None the less, that is what the EU is moving towards. It would therefore be helpful to know exactly what the Government’s position is on the matter. That would offer a halfway house to much fuller transparency.

We are trying to get at the matter through a side door in our amendment, but we are going to keep pushing this argument for more transparency on trusts, which we think is absolutely essential. In the debate in the House on some of these matters and on the Paradise papers, I remember certain Government Members using an analogy for offshore trusts, stating that they were very similar to ISAs—surely they are exactly similar. I always use the “neighbour test.” I think, “What would my neighbour think?” If I asked her, “Is it okay for you to have an ISA?”, she would say, “If I had enough money, yes I would like to, if I could.” The exact intentions of an ISA are clear within its provisions: they are meant to promote savings. That is the whole point of them.

However, as far as I can see there is no legislation that promotes individuals undertaking trusts specifically as a means of tax avoidance—that is not the stated intention of any piece of legislation, as distinct from the stated intention of ISAs. Therefore, the analogy is inappropriate. We will continue to push for the need for greater transparency in this area.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

It is a pleasure to be here. I am continually impressed by the breadth and depth of knowledge displayed by the hon. Member for Oxford East, who has been a brilliant addition to the shadow Front-Bench team; I am pleased to be taking part in so many meetings at which she speaks.

The Minister has written a letter to the Chair, stating:

“I have tabled three minor amendments to clause 35. They replace amendments 3 and 4 already tabled which are withdrawn and make sure the schedule works as intended. They are in response to expert stakeholder feedback. The concern about amendment 3 was that it had unintentionally switched off the onward payment rule”—

which does not sound like a good thing—

“and also that amendment 4 had contained an incorrect cross-reference.”

These have been changed because of expert stakeholder feedback. Given the discussion we had last week, if we had taken evidence from expert stakeholders, the Government might not have had to make those changes at this late stage. The next time we have a Finance Bill, I would appreciate it if the Government considered having that evidence session in advance of the Public Bill Committee stage, not in advance of consideration by Committee of the whole House, as generally we are discussing the less technical matters at that stage. These are incredibly technical matters, and the Government have clearly made a couple of mistakes in their amendments. They might not have done so had we heard the expert evidence and been able to ask questions at that stage. I support the Opposition amendments and urge the Minister to respond to my concerns.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

I will allow the hon. Lady to make that point, although it is strictly out of order. I am sure that it has been taken.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

May I echo the generous observations made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North about the hon. Member for Oxford East, who is extremely thorough, well-read and well-versed in the matters we discuss in Committee, adding a great deal to the quality of the debate and the scrutiny of the Bill.

I was pleased that the hon. Member for Oxford East welcomed the tightening that we are introducing on this aspect of anti-avoidance. She stated that she would like to see more of it, if that is necessary, and referred to the ICAEW’s comments in that respect. We must always bear in mind that there is inevitably a certain capacity within Government to set out legislation wherever we come across further improvements that could be made or loopholes that could be tightened up, but there is an army of creative, knowledgeable and determined individuals who set out to undo what we put in place, so all Governments will probably always be in the business of tracking down and closing loopholes as they become evident. I can assure her that the Treasury and I intend to be vigorous in stamping out tax avoidance and evasion. It is entirely unfair on those who rightly pay their fair share of tax, it is damaging to our public services, and we will not tolerate it.

The hon. Member for Oxford East raised various concerns about the non-doms regime, some of which reprised our debates on the previous Finance Bill. She might not be satisfied with the current arrangements pertaining to the taxation of non-domiciled individuals, but they are tighter than was the case under previous Labour Governments, when the remittance basis came in. She referred to the different bases on which different people are taxed—that was certainly a feature under the Labour Government. As we have argued many times, we have to make a balance between having a robust regime that is fair to the taxpayer and making sure that the investment that certain individuals bring to this country is not unduly jeopardised.

The hon. Member for Oxford East asked specifically what discussions we may have been having with the Crown dependencies and overseas territories—recognising, as she does, the advances we have made on access to information about companies and their affairs, which is real-time access for HMRC. We have of course been at the forefront of the common reporting standards regime. She asked specifically about trusts. From the UK’s tax perspective, the trusts that are relevant are those that have a UK tax interest associated with them. We have already brought into law provisions that set up exactly that register, which is accessible by HMRC. There is a duty on those trusts where such an interest is a part of the operation of the trusts for them to be disclosed in that manner. She asked what actions might be taken to simplify the taxation of trusts and referred to the ICAEW’s points on that. She might be aware that there is an ongoing consultation, the results of which will be published later this year. I am certainly happy to keep her informed as that progresses.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North did indeed go slightly beyond the scope of the Bill, so perhaps I might be allowed similar latitude in responding to the important points she raised. She is right that amendment 3, as originally drafted, would have switched off the elements of the Bill that clamped down on the onward gifting of moneys and capital from trusts, and I fully accept that that was an unfortunate error. She contends that it is just the kind of error that might have been spotted earlier had we had an evidence session as part of the Finance Bill process. However, that error shows how these highly granular, technical, line-by-line issues, by their very nature, are probably best handled not in a broad Committee evidence session, but through consultation on the draft legislation. Particularly as we move to a single fiscal event, where we will have a more measured build-up to Finance Bills, the Treasury’s aim will be to ensure that we get as much of the Bill in draft out there, so that organisations, accountants and others can pore over these clauses line by line. On the general point about evidence sessions, as we have discussed before, it would be for the usual channels to agree those. I am sure that she will be making those representations to her Whips’ offices.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Amendment proposed: 62, in schedule 10, page 142, line 40, at end insert—

“87Q Review of taxation of capital payments received from a settlement

(1) Within six months of the passing of the Finance Act 2018, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects of the changes to this Chapter made by Schedule 10 to that Act.

(2) The review under this section must consider the effects of those changes on—

(a) the taxation regime for settlements, and

(b) anti-avoidance measures for settlements.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons the report of the review under this section as soon as practicable after its completion.”—(Anneliese Dodds.)

This amendment requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the effects of changes to TCGA 1992 made by the Bill in relation to the taxation of capital payments received from a settlement.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 7

16 January 2018

The Committee divided:

Ayes: 9
Noes: 10

Question accordingly negatived.

View Details

Amendment proposed: 63, in schedule 10, page 142, line 40, at end insert—

“87Q Public register of capital payments received from settlements

(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must by regulations establish a register of capital payments received from settlements to which this Chapter applies within 12 months of the passing of the Finance Act 2018.

(2) A register established under subsection (1) shall record in relation to capital payments—

(a) the recipient beneficiary;

(b) the settlor; and

(c) the trustees of the settlement from which the capital payment is received.

(3) That part of the register containing information in paragraph (c) shall be made available to the public.”

(1A) In section 98(1), after “87”, insert “, 87Q”.”—(Anneliese Dodds.)

This amendment creates an obligation for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to create a public register of trust beneficiaries, settlors, and trustees. It also amends section 98(1) of TCGA 1992 to expand, to include new section 87Q, the existing power for HMRC to require any person to provide information as they think necessary to fulfil certain sections of that Act.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 8

16 January 2018

The Committee divided:

Ayes: 9
Noes: 10

Question accordingly negatived.

View Details

Amendments made: 2, in schedule 10, page 146, line 7, after “is” insert

“—

(a) where the individual is UK resident for the year,”

Amendment 51, in schedule 10, page 146, line 9, at end insert

“, and

(b) where the individual is non-UK resident for the year, treated for the purposes of subsection (2) and sections 643I to 643L (but no other purpose) as income of the individual for the year, subject to subsection (5).”

Amendment 52, in schedule 10, page 146, line 33, leave out from “purposes” to second “for” in line 34 and insert

“as income of the settlor for the year and, in a case within paragraph (b), not as income of the individual”.

Amendment 5, schedule 10, page 147, line 4, at end insert—

“(7) If—

(a) an enactment other than this section contains a reference (however expressed) to—

(i) income treated as arising by this section, or

(ii) an amount treated as income by this section, and

(b) the reference mentions this section without mentioning any particular provision of this section,

the reference is (in accordance with subsection (1)(b)) to be read as not including amounts treated as income by subsection (1)(b) except so far as they are treated as income of the settlor of a settlement by subsection (3) or (4).”

Amendment 6, in schedule 10, page 148, line 4, at end insert—

“(4) In this section and sections 643C to 643M, a reference to a benefit provided by trustees of a settlement is to—

(a) a benefit treated by subsection (6) as provided by the trustees, or

(b) any other benefit if it is provided by the trustees directly, or indirectly, out of—

(i) property comprised in the settlement, or

(ii) income arising under the settlement.

(5) In this section and sections 643C to 643M, a reference to a benefit provided by trustees of a settlement to an individual is to—

(a) a benefit treated by subsection (6) as provided by the trustees to the individual, or

(b) any other benefit if it is provided by the trustees to the individual directly, or indirectly, out of—

(i) property comprised in the settlement, or

(ii) income arising under the settlement.

(6) Where—

(a) income arises under a settlement, and

(b) the income, before being distributed, is the income of a person other than the trustees,

a benefit is for the purposes of subsection (4)(a) treated as provided by the trustees and is for the purposes of subsection (5)(a) treated as provided by the trustees to the person.

(7) A benefit treated as provided by subsection (6) is treated—

(a) as consisting of the income mentioned in that subsection, but after any reduction in accordance with Chapter 8 of Part 9 of ITA 2007 for trustees’ expenses, and

(b) as provided at the time that income arises.”

Amendment 7, in schedule 10, page 148, leave out lines 14 to 18 and insert—

“PFSI is the total of—

(a) any protected foreign-source income—

(i) arising under the settlement in the year or in any earlier tax year,

(ii) that would be treated under section 624 as income of the settlor but for section 628A,

(iii) that can be used directly or indirectly to provide benefits for the individual, and

(iv) on which the individual is not liable to income tax (ignoring for this purpose any liability under section 643A), and

(b) any protected foreign-source income—

(i) arising under the settlement in the year or in any earlier tax year,

(ii) that would be treated under section 629 as income of the settlor but for section 630A, and

(iii) on which the relevant child concerned (see section 629) is not liable to income tax (ignoring for this purpose any liability under section 643A),”.

Amendment 8, in schedule 10, page 148, line 25, leave out “all amounts which” and insert

“so much of PFSI as is”.

Amendment 9, in schedule 10, page 148, line 26, leave out “are”.

Amendment 10, in schedule 10, page 148, line 29, leave out “all amounts which” and insert

“so much of PFSI as is”.

Amendment 11, in schedule 10, page 148, line 30, leave out “are”.

Amendment 12, in schedule 10, page 149, line 33, leave out “available”.

Amendment 13, in schedule 10, page 149, leave out lines 37 to 40.

Amendment 14, in schedule 10, page 149, line 41, at end insert—

‘(6) In this section and section 643G—

“protected income” means the income that forms PFSI in the calculation of the settlement’s available protected income in the case of the relevant individual for the year, and

“the relevant individual”—

(a) where the deemed income is treated as income of an individual by section 643A(1)(a) both before and after the application of section 643A(3) and (4), means that individual, and

(b) where the deemed income is treated as income of the settlor by section 643A(3) or (4) after having been treated as income of another individual by section 643A(1), means that other individual.’

Amendment 15, in schedule 10, page 149, line 43, leave out “subsection (2)” and insert “this section”.

Amendment 16, in schedule 10, page 150, line 2, leave out from “settlement,” to end of line 7 and insert

‘the year and the relevant individual,

(b) “protected income” and “the relevant individual” have the meaning given by section 643F(6), and

(c) “the settlement” and “the year” mean, respectively, the settlement and tax year mentioned in section 643F.’

Amendment 17, in schedule 10,  page 150, line 10, after first “the” insert “relevant”.

Amendment 18, in schedule 10, page 150, line 16, leave out “available”.

Amendment 19, in schedule 10, page 150, line 17, at end insert—

“(ca) where the whole or part of an item of the protected income is, in respect of benefits provided by the trustees in the year or in any earlier tax year, taken into account in charging income tax under Chapter 2 of Part 13 of ITA 2007 (transfer of assets abroad) for the year or any earlier tax year, reduce the item by so much of itself as is so taken into account,

(cb) where the whole or part of an item of the protected income is, by reference to benefits provided by the trustees to individuals other than the relevant individual, treated by section 643A or 643J or 643L as income for the year or any earlier tax year, reduce the item by so much of itself as is so treated,”.

Amendment 20, in schedule 10, page 150, line 18, leave out

“643A as arising to the”

and insert

“643A(1) (before the application of section 643A(3) and (4)) as arising to the relevant”.

Amendment 21, in schedule 10, page 150, line 19, after “benefits” insert

“referred to in paragraph (a)”.

Amendment 22, in schedule 10, page 150, line 23, after “benefits” insert

“referred to in paragraph (a)”.

Amendment 23, in schedule 10, page 150, line 24, leave out “available”.

Amendment 24, in schedule 10, page 150, line 25, leave out second “the” and insert “those”.

Amendment 25, in schedule 10, page 150, line 26, leave out “available”.

Amendment 26, in schedule 10, page 150, line 27, at end insert—

“(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(ca), the whole or part of an item of the protected income is to be treated as taken into account in respect of a benefit so far as the item or part—

(a) is matched under section 735A of ITA 2007 with notional income with which the benefit is matched under that section, or

(b) would be matched under that section (if it applied also for this purpose) with notional income with which the benefit would be matched under that section (if it applied also for this purpose),

and here “notional income” means income which is treated as arising under section 732 of ITA 2007.”

Amendment 27, in schedule 10, page 150, line 47, leave out “643A(1),” and insert “643A(1)(a),”.

Amendment 53, in schedule 10, page 151, line 7, at end insert

“or

(iii) is treated by section 643A(1)(b), before the application of section 643A(3) and (4), as income of an individual (“the original beneficiary”) for a tax year (“the matching year”) but is not treated by section 643A(3), and is not treated by section 643A(4), as income of the settlor for the matching year,”.

Amendment 28, in schedule 10, page 152, leave out lines 10 to 19 and insert—

“(2) Where, in a case within subsection (1)(a)(i) and by reference to the amount mentioned in subsection (1)(a), income is treated by section 643J or 643L as arising to a person for a tax year, the original beneficiary is not liable to tax for any later tax year on so much of the amount mentioned in subsection (1)(a) as is equal to that income; and where, in a case within subsection (1)(a)(ii) and by reference to the amount mentioned in subsection (1)(a), income is treated by section 643J as arising to a person for a tax year, the settlor is not liable to tax for any later tax year on so much of the amount mentioned in subsection (1)(a) as is equal to that income.”

Amendment 29, in schedule 10, page 154, line 38, leave out “643A(1)” and insert—

“643A(1)(a), both before and after the application of section 643A(3) and (4),”.

Amendment 30, in schedule 10, page 156, line 40, at end insert—

“(ca) the original recipient is not taxed on the original benefit (see subsection (6A)),”.

Amendment 31, in schedule 10, page 158, line 15, at end insert—

“(6A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(ca), the original recipient is taxed on the original benefit if the original recipient is liable to income tax, or capital gains tax, by reference to the amount or value of the original benefit; and where the original recipient is so liable by reference to the amount or value of part only of the original benefit, this section applies as if the two parts of the original benefit were separate benefits.”

Amendment 32, in schedule 10, page 158, line 21, at end insert—

“and see also section 643B(4) to (7) (interpretation of references to provision of benefits by trustees).”—(Mel Stride.)

Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 36

Fixed rate deduction for expenditure on vehicles etc

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

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

With this it will be convenient to take new clause 14—Fixed rate deduction for expenditure on vehicles: review of change to eligibility

“(1) Within twelve months after the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects of the amendments made by section 36 allowing unincorporated property businesses to use flat rates for mileage when calculating allowable deductions for vehicle expenditure for income tax.

(2) The review under this section must consider—

(a) the revenue effects of the change made, and

(b) the effect of the change on rates of car usage in unincorporated property businesses.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons the report of the review under this section as soon as practicable after its completion.” (Peter Dowd.)

This new clause provides for a review into the effects on revenue and on car use of allowing unincorporated property businesses to use flat rates, commonly referred to as mileage rates, when calculating allowed deductions for income tax.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

Clause 36 makes changes to ensure that unincorporated property businesses have the option to use mileage rates to calculate their allowable deductions for motoring expenses. Trading businesses have been able to use mileage rates since 2013. That gives individuals the choice to use fixed rates per business mile to calculate their allowable deductions for motoring expenses, instead of deducting actual running costs and claiming capital allowances. However, that simpler option has not been available to landlords.

The changes made by clause 36 address that, giving more than 2.3 million property businesses the option to use mileage rates to calculate their allowable deductions for motoring expenses, and providing administrative savings to approximately 1.8 million property businesses. Mileage rates are also available to landlords using the cash basis, bringing further simplicity to that group’s tax affairs.

Extending mileage rates to property businesses is one of the most effective steps that we can take to simplify the tax system for landlords, and it is a change that stakeholders asked for during a recent consultation. The clause, legislating for the measure announced in the autumn Budget 2017, applies from April 2017, so landlords can benefit immediately.

The new clause tabled by Opposition Members asks for the Government to review the effects of the change on tax revenue and on rates of car usage by property businesses. I appreciate the Opposition’s desire to test and examine the impacts of policy changes, but in this instance there would be little for a review to study. The policy cost, certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility, is negligible for every year of the forecast. Mileage rates are designed to reflect average costs for those who use a vehicle, so the measure is a tax simplification, not a tax reduction. We would not expect any significant difference in how many property businesses use a car, either.

Landlords will take decisions based on the practicalities of running their business. The tax difference would not be significant enough for us to expect any increase or decrease in the number using a car. As identified in the tax information impact note, because the same flat mileage rate is applied for all cars, that may provide some incentive for businesses to use smaller, more efficient cars with lower operating costs. This measure will simplify the tax system further for many landlords, and I commend the clause to the Committee.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

Before we proceed, I remind all hon. Members, both new and longer in the tooth, that all new clauses are debated with other items now but voted on at the end of the Bill. We will not miss it, do not worry; we will come to it in due course.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

Thank you, Sir Roger, and I will aim to keep my remarks brief. This measure was requested by stakeholders during consultations in autumn 2016, particularly on the use of the cash basis in general. As the Minister said, it appears to offer more consistency for different groups of taxpayers, particularly self-employed traders and employees, and unincorporated property businesses. None the less, Labour Members are requesting a review of the measure because we think it important to have more information about its potential revenue effects. The Minister has said that the change is largely to the basis of calculation, but if we are talking about a shift to mileage rates rather than the value of the business technology used in the first place—the car—that could be significant for the amount of tax levied, and it would be helpful to have more information on that.

We know that public services and revenues are under a huge amount of pressure, but we do not have a clear view of the overall impact of reliefs on Government revenue. That point came up in our discussions last week, and a number of my colleagues rightly intervened on it. It would be helpful to have more information about that, and about whether there could be unintended consequences. Such consequences would affect self-employed traders and employees who use mileage rates—it is not just a matter for landlords who might be covered by the new provisions—and it would be helpful to know whether, for example, there has been any consideration of trying to reduce car use in general. Some of the small one-man, one-woman bands who might be covered by the measure could be landlords of a small number of properties in a small geographical area. The Government should consider how to enable people not to use a car in the first place, and it would be helpful to hear their thinking on that.

I fondly remember how, when I was a student, my landlord used to cycle around with his dog—sadly now deceased—in the basket of his bike, and that was how he got around his properties. [Interruption.] The landlord is still going, as I understand it; only the dog is deceased.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

What about the bike?

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

The bike, I think, is still going as well. I still see my previous landlord cycling between his properties, and perhaps we should aim to promote that model, particularly when we are talking about small concerns. I am not belittling the transport requirements of larger landlords or those with properties that are geographically spread out, but it would be helpful to consider such measures. It would also be useful to know whether a thorough analysis has been made of the administrative burdens that the measure might create. The Minister alluded to that, but more information would be helpful.

May we have an indication of the extent to which the Government will try to prevent abuse in this area? I am aware that that already applies to the use of this basis by self-employed traders and employees, but during the Minister’s remarks I was reminded of debates about the business use of private jets, which came up in discussions on the Paradise papers. I have talked to the Isle of Man’s representatives about this. They maintain that activities have generally been above board, and that they are sorting out activities that have not been. We all remember the video of Lewis Hamilton enjoying his new private jet, which, in theory, was just for business use. It appears that appropriate safeguards had not been put in place to make sure that the jet was just for private use.

How are we ensuring that, in these kind of cases and more generally, cars are used overwhelmingly for business use? I believe it is a question of whether they are predominantly for business use. We are talking about small landlords, so it could be quite difficult to make that distinction. It is about how we prevent abuse while protecting the interests of small business.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

I thank the hon. Member for Oxford East for her observations, particularly the curious incident of the dead dog and the bike, which I think might end up being one of the most memorable statements in the passage of the Bill.

The hon. Lady eloquently alluded to the impact of such measures on the size or type of vehicles used to carry out the business activities that we are discussing. I point to my earlier remark that, if a fixed rate per mile can be claimed, there is an incentive to use a less expensive means of transport, be it a bicycle or a less polluting vehicle, while claiming the mileage. A useful dynamic, in terms of her interest in this area, is built into the system.

As I have pointed out, the measure is a simplification, not a tax reduction. That is a pertinent point when it comes to a review of behavioural change, because it does not change the overall weight of the tax burden on this group. As I have set out, the Office for Budget Responsibility has stated that the fiscal impact of the measure will be negligible—meaning that the impact will not exceed £5 million in any year—in every year of the scorecard period, albeit that 1.8 million businesses are affected by it.

The hon. Lady asked how we will know if people are abusing the system by claiming mileage allowances for a use other than business use, or for travel that has not occurred. That problem is implicit in any arrangement of this nature, in which expenses are claimed as a tax deduction. HMRC has become more and more sophisticated in how it looks at tax returns—that is clearly how such information would be provided—and it uses technology to look for patterns and abnormalities. It sometimes looks at whole subsets of taxpayers that have a greater propensity to do certain things, and it therefore investigates members of those groups more rigorously. That would be part of the approach.

Overall, I do not think it is necessary to have a review, particularly given the negligible impact of the change. On the grounds of proportionality, I ask the hon. Lady to consider withdrawing the new clause.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

The new clause cannot be withdrawn at this stage, because it has not been moved. It will be moved later, as I have indicated.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37

Carried interest

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

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Review of the impact of the removal of the transitional taxation arrangements for carried interest—

‘(1) Within two months of Royal Assent to this Act, the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shall complete a review of the impact of the removal of transitional taxation arrangements for sums to which sections 43 and 45 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2015 apply.

(2) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay the report of this review before the House of Commons.”

This new clause would require HMRC to carry out a review of the impact of removing transitional tax arrangements for sums to which sections 43 and 45 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2015 apply.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

The clause removes certain transitional rules that are no longer required for the effective taxation of carried interest charged to capital gains tax. It amends the legislation that introduced the carried interest rules in the Finance (No. 2) Act 2015. The purpose of the rules is to ensure that where carried interest is subject to CGT treatment, CGT is paid on the full economic award.

Investment fund managers are rewarded in a range of ways for their work. One element of reward is straightforward income in the form of a fee, while another involves what is known as carried interest, which is the portion of the fund’s value allocated to the manager in return for their long-term services to the fund. The manager’s reward is therefore dependent on the performance of the fund. If the carried interest relates to short-term investments, it is rightly charged to income tax and national insurance.

The changes made by clause 37 make the tax system fairer by removing a limited exemption from the carried interest rules. That carve-out applied only to transactions before 8 July 2015 where there was a delay in the carried interest being paid out. By removing this exemption, we clarify and strengthen the policy intention. Furthermore, we prevent attempts to reduce unfairly the tax payable in circumstances not intended by the original legislation. To prevent forestalling, this clause, if passed, will have taken effect from 22 November 2017. It will ensure that carried interest is always subject to the higher rates of CGT on the full economic award.

The clause removes a transitional rule that is no longer required and puts the taxation of carried interest beyond doubt. Asset managers should pay the full rate of capital gains tax on their full economic award if it relates to long-term investments, and I therefore ask that this clause stands part of the Bill.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

rose—

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

Ms Blackman, you may wish to speak to new clause 2, but you understand that you will not, at this stage, move it.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

Thank you, Sir Roger. New clause 2 is designed to enable us to find out more about the previous effects of this transitional arrangement. The changes that the Government are making to ensure that all carried interest is subject to capital gains tax at the higher rate are reasonable, but I am concerned about the transitional arrangement and its effect on the income of the Exchequer. Would it not have been better for the Government to make the initial change in the first place, rather than having a transition period in which they have received less tax and the disparity between the haves and have-nots—those who are receiving carried interest and those who are not receiving carried interest—has continued because of the transitional relief on carried interest from the higher rate of CGT?

It would be good if the Government told us the impact of the transitional relief on the income of the Exchequer, and therefore on the overall tax take. It would be good if they told us the differential between people who received transitional relief, and normal people who do not receive transitional relief and have probably never even heard of carried interest. It would be good if the Government came back with a bit more information.

We are clearly not opposed to these changes, but we are trying to find out more information and make sure that previous decisions on the matter were sensible. If we have an assessment, we can make better tax law. If we are looking at making changes, we can assess whether transitional relief is really necessary or whether we should move to a fairer system straight away, without the two-year period that has been instituted.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North for her observations. She says that the principal rationale for a review is to consider whether certain measures might have been brought in earlier and, indeed, whether the original transitional measures should not have been introduced, or should have been done differently. I am not sure that that, in itself, is a strong justification for a review. What matters is that we look closely at how these measures will operate, and I am grateful for her recognition of the fact that our proposed changes are positive in that respect. I assure her that we will closely monitor the operation of the measures and whether any further changes are needed.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38

Online marketplaces

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 38, page 27, line 6, leave out “69” and insert “69(1)”.

This amendment specifies the subsection of section 69 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 that is being amended by Clause 38(2).

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(c) in any other case, £15,000.’”

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

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

“(ba) after subsection (3), insert—

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

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

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

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

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

Clause 38 stand part.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

It is a pleasure, as ever, to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East reminded me of the Sherlock Holmes case, “The Adventure of the Solitary Cyclist”. I am not sure whether someone who has a dog with them still counts as a solitary cyclist, but given that there is one cyclist, I expect they do.

If hon. Members look at our explanatory note on amendment 57, they will see that our proposals and the penalties we believe should be enacted certainly do not go as far as the penalties that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar will be aware of, since I understand he did his PhD on the Mercian polity. That is reminiscent of another document, “Theft, Homicide and Crime in Late Anglo-Saxon Law”, which stated:

“It is a startling but infrequently remarked upon fact that for five centuries English law, which prescribed the sternest penalties for theft, contained…a relatively minor royal fine for homicide.”

We are not going to the sternest of fines for what is perhaps de facto theft here, but we are sending a clear message in relation to online marketplace avoidance, or effectively evasion, of VAT: “You don’t try to rip off the Government.”

Our proposals seek to address the growing levels of online VAT fraud and the responsibility of online retailers to play a much-needed part in tackling it. We now all spend a large proportion of our lives online, so it is unsurprising that more UK consumers than ever are buying a larger proportion of their goods through online marketplaces such as Amazon, eBay and others. In 2016, 14.5% of all UK retail sales were online, up from 2% in 2006. Just over 50% of those sales were through online marketplaces rather than directly by the seller.

The VAT rules clearly require that

“all traders based outside the European Union (EU), selling goods online to customers in the UK, should charge VAT if their goods are already in the UK at the point of sale”,

but, as hon. Members will be aware, some are not doing so. According to the National Audit Office:

“HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) estimates that online VAT fraud and error cost between £1 billion and £1.5 billion in lost tax revenue in 2015-16 but this estimate is subject to a high level of uncertainty… The estimate is calculated from an assessment of the extent of under-valuation in a sample of medium and high-risk imports from high-risk non-EU countries, underpinned by assumptions informed by operational data and intelligence. This method uses an estimate of import VAT fraud as a proxy for the scale of online VAT fraud and error, and HMRC considers it to be the best estimate from data available,”

which is perfectly reasonable.

The Campaign Against VAT Fraud on eBay & Amazon in the UK estimates that online VAT fraud

“equates to £27 billion in lost sales revenue & additional taxes to UK businesses and the public purse in the last 3 years”

alone. What is more, HMRC has stated that it does not have data on online fraud and other losses before 2015-16, and as far as I am aware it does not plan to repeat the review of lost tax for future years. Similarly,

“HMRC estimates do not account for the wider impacts of online VAT fraud and error such as distortion of the competitive market landscape.”

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

I have worked with major UK retailers for almost 20 years, and there has been growing distortion in the market, as between brick-and-mortar retailers and online retailers, on business rates in particular. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we do not tackle VAT fraud more proactively, it simply adds insult to injury for those honourable retailers that are investing in considerable job and employment opportunities in the UK?

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

My hon. Friend makes a valid point that goes to the heart of much of today’s discussion: those who seek to avoid should pay appropriate penalties.

The slowness of HMRC to respond to growing fraud online has been criticised by the Public Accounts Committee, which raised concerns first in April 2013 and more recently in October 2017. It is not alone; the National Audit Office reported in 2013 that

“HMRC had not…produced a comprehensive plan to react to the emerging threat to the VAT system posed by online trading.”

The report found that HMRC had developed tools to identify internet-based traders and launched campaigns to encourage compliance, but had shown less urgency in developing an operational response to it.

Trader groups, such as the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, have been raising concerns for many years, and claim that online VAT fraud has been a problem from as early as 2009, yet the Government did not recognise the problem until 2015. Nearly three years later, the Government are finally introducing measures that will force the Amazons and eBays of this world to be held jointly accountable for the VAT of online vendors that use their sites.

My understanding is that HMRC has instead pursued civil operations against suspected evaders, as HMRC claims that difficulties in prosecuting suspected online fraud make that route lengthy, costly and uncertain of outcome; I suppose that is justice. Barriers include sellers being based outside the EU, and the need to show intent to commit fraud. I would like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many operations HMRC has pursued since 2015, and what their outcomes were.

The Public Accounts Committee report on online VAT fraud found that HMRC had only recently begun to take the problem seriously, despite the fact this fraud leads to significant loss of revenue to the Exchequer, in effect depriving our public services of the funds they so desperately need. The Committee found that HMRC, rather than trying to use its pre-existing powers, waited until the introduction of new measures under the Finance Act 2016 before it attempted to hold online marketplaces responsible for VAT that had been fraudulently evaded by traders. HMRC has been too cautious in using those powers, and the Government have refused to name and shame non-complaint traders; so far, to my knowledge, they have not prosecuted a single one for committing online VAT fraud.

Professor de la Feria, an expert in tax law at the University of Leeds, pointed out that HMRC has not been doing enough to tackle the problem, despite the required legislation being in place. She argued that laws existing before the introduction of the 2016 measures provided scope.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I was at the hearing on VAT fraud. Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that VAT is incredibly difficult to police, especially on e-commerce platforms, given the international nature of a lot of the trade, including by small traders in China? Does he not accept that changes put forward in the Budget address some of the concerns that the Public Accounts Committee raises, and mark a positive step on the Government’s part?

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

Yes and yes, but that does not alter the fact that we need to push on as much as we can with tackling this issue. The amendments go some way towards helping and, importantly, towards sending a message to those who choose to evade VAT. In online marketplaces and fulfilment houses, fraudulent activity continues fairly unabated, and we must do something about it.

Professor de la Feria also believes that part of the reason that HMRC has been slow to tackle online fraud is that it is most likely considered not cost-effective to pursue it. Online marketplaces and HMRC are not doing enough together to tackle the problem, notwithstanding the action that has been taken. Online marketplaces continue to earn their commissions, and so their profit, from people who are defrauding the British taxpayer. Amazon, for example, organises regular presentations at Chinese fairs—a point referred to by the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire—to recruit overseas sellers, I suspect; has plans to buy a shipping company; and fulfils orders and handles payments. That all suggests a very embedded relationship with the seller. Those connections and networks are there; people must know each other to set them up. HMRC should use those relationships and networks to do something about the problem.

Until we can incentivise online marketplaces to act, they will continue to offer a lacklustre approach to tackling online VAT fraud. In September 2016, HMRC introduced new legal powers to tackle online VAT fraud and error. They allow HMRC to issue a warning to online marketplaces about potential sellers who are not paying VAT. Since their introduction, how many times has HMRC used the new powers? How many sellers has HMRC issued a warning about, and what was the result of the use of the powers? Since they were introduced, HMRC has seen an increase in the number of new VAT registrations from non-EU sellers, but HMRC confirms that it is not aware of the proportion of those sellers that have in the past been trading and not charging VAT, or whether those sellers will be compliant in future. Last year, HMRC told the Public Accounts Committee that it expected to collect £50 million more VAT in 2017 from the traders that had recently registered for VAT, so can the Minister confirm that HMRC has collected that money, or is on course to do so?

According to HMRC, some online VAT fraud is due to a lack of awareness, some overseas sellers being unaware that they need to pay VAT. Both Amazon and eBay, when testifying to the Public Accounts Committee, agreed with that view and described the lack of awareness of VAT rules as a major element of the problem. What efforts has HMRC made to educate sellers in the UK about potential VAT fraud? More importantly, what efforts have been made to ensure that overseas sellers are aware of the need to pay VAT?

The other part of the problem stems not from error, but from clear criminality. HMRC’s strategic threat assessment, carried out in 2014, concluded that it was highly likely that organised criminal groups based in the UK and overseas sellers in China were using fulfilment houses to facilitate the transit of undervalued or misclassified goods, or both, from China to the UK for sale online. It is particularly concerning that HMRC is uncertain of the exact number of fulfilment houses in the UK. Surely one of the first parts of cracking down on this criminality is establishing the exact number of fulfilment houses in operation. That goes some way to dealing with the point made by the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire. Perhaps the Minister can take a minute to explain what steps HMRC is taking to address the issue and crack down on organised criminal groups in the UK and other countries, and what efforts Border Force is making to tackle online VAT fraud by targeting fulfilment houses, where the goods are stored.

Once again, it seems that HMRC is hampered by the Government’s cuts to staffing and resources, and that this is having an impact on the Government’s ability to crack down on online VAT fraud. According to the Public and Commercial Services Union—HMRC’s trade union—in real terms, after the cost of inflation is taken into account, the resources available to HMRC are about 40% less today than they were in 2000. Since 2010, under this Government, HMRC’s staffing has fallen by 17%, and it is set to fall further under the “Building our Future” programme. These are important factors in relation to tackling evasion. That programme will close practically the entire departmental estate of 170 offices. How will that help with tackling the mass of VAT crime?

The elephant in the room is the added uncertainty about Brexit and its impact on the effectiveness of the measures. There is considerable uncertainty about the exact terms on which the UK will leave the EU, so it is vital to get to grips with this. Sellers based in the EU may end up operating under the same VAT terms as apply to non-EU sellers and therefore may also be tempted not to charge VAT. Perhaps the Minister can offer insight into what steps HMRC is taking to ensure that these measures will be robust, irrespective of the outcome of the Brexit negotiations.

There are already considerable control weaknesses at the border. The most recent European Anti-Fraud Office report on customs duties was scathing about the state of UK customs, arguing that “continuous negligence” has deprived the EU of almost £2 billion in revenues on lost Chinese merchandise. According to the report, British customs played a central role by repeatedly ignoring warnings to take action over Chinese textiles and footwear pouring into the EU. Since then, HMRC has failed to open any criminal investigations into specific fraud schemes. The European Anti-Fraud Office is so aggrieved with the UK Government that it has recommended to the European Commission’s directorate-general for budget that the UK should be forced to pay £2 billion directly into the EU budget.

A number of UK trader groups believe that HMRC could do more, particularly when it comes to seller data that would identify potentially non-compliant sellers. HMRC has begun to collaborate with the online marketplace to gather this data, but the data exchange is in its early stages.

Amazon and eBay have both made huge assertions about the level of action they have taken to deal with sellers on their websites not paying VAT, and about the efforts they have made to collaborate with HMRC. However, Amazon started collecting VAT numbers from non-EU sellers only six months ago and, perhaps most worrying of all, told the Public Accounts Committee last year that knowing whether a non-EU seller has a valid VAT number is not a crucial data point. HMRC has reported resistance from online marketplaces when it comes to sharing data that is not held in the UK’s jurisdiction, so it is clear that there is a lot more work to do.

We welcome moves to make online marketplaces jointly liable for the VAT of the sellers on their websites. However, we have concerns, which are laid out in our amendments. The first concern is about the wording of the measures, which seems to imply that joint liability will not be presumed in law; instead, it will happen after HMRC has undertaken an investigation. This creates the opportunity for online marketplaces to continue tacitly to allow their sellers a level of freedom unless HMRC specifically catches them out.

Secondly, the Government have not stated the value of the penalty that an online marketplace would incur if it refused to co-operate with HMRC. Amendment 57 would set the penalty at £5,000 for the first offence, £10,000 for the second, and £15,000 for every offence thereafter.

Thirdly, the Government have failed to specify a time framework for an online marketplace to comply with HMRC and remove a seller’s goods if it fails to pay VAT. Amendments 58 and 59 would give the online marketplace 10 days to comply, and would reduce the time after which it must cease to offer goods that are in breach of the registration requirement from 60 days to 10 days. This would ensure that an online market that failed to comply would automatically cease offering goods in breach of the law.

The measures are a step in the right direction, but as I have shown, there is an array of outstanding questions that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and HMRC have failed to answer. They may well be able to answer them, but until they do, we will continue to think that the Government are not as serious as they should be about tackling the growing industry of online VAT fraud, and about the billions potentially being lost to the UK taxpayer.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(David Rutley.)

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting)

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Sir Roger Gale, † Albert Owen

† Blackman, Kirsty (Aberdeen North) (SNP)

† Burghart, Alex (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)

† Carden, Dan (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)

† Chalk, Alex (Cheltenham) (Con)

† Clarke, Mr Simon (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)

† Dodds, Anneliese (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)

† Dowd, Peter (Bootle) (Lab)

† George, Ruth (High Peak) (Lab)

† Graham, Luke (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)

† Kerr, Stephen (Stirling) (Con)

† Lee, Ms Karen (Lincoln) (Lab)

† Maclean, Rachel (Redditch) (Con)

† Philp, Chris (Croydon South) (Con)

† Pidcock, Laura (North West Durham) (Lab)

† Rutley, David (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Smith, Jeff (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)

† Stride, Mel (Financial Secretary to the Treasury)

† Thewliss, Alison (Glasgow Central) (SNP)

† Whately, Helen (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)

Colin Lee, Jyoti Chandola, Gail Bartlett, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Tuesday 16 January 2018

(Afternoon)

[Albert Owen in the Chair]

Finance (No. 2) Bill

(Except clause 8; clause 33 and schedule 9; clauses 40 and 41 and schedule 11; new clauses or new schedules relating to the income tax treatment of armed forces' accommodation allowances, the bank levy, stamp duty land tax, the effect of the Bill on equality, or the effect of the Bill on tax avoidance or evasion)

Clause 38

Online marketplaces

Amendment proposed (this day): 56, in clause 38, page 27, line 6, leave out ‘69’ and insert ‘69(1)’.—(Peter Dowd.)

This amendment specifies the subsection of section 69 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 that is being amended by Clause 38(2).

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(c) in any other case, £15,000.”’

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

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

‘(ba) after subsection (3), insert—

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

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

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

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

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

Clause stand part.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

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

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

The chartered accountants are asking for the UK to seek

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

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

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

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

I am deeply grateful to the Government for accepting an amendment that specifies the subsection of section 69 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 that will be amended by clause 38(2). It is very significant and a major climb-down by the Government. [Laughter.] May there be many more of them, Mr Owen. It is a delight to see you in the Chair.

I am not wholly convinced by the Minister’s protestations about the huge amounts involved and the latitude that the Government appear to give to people who, when they set up businesses, know the environment that they are operating in. These are intelligent people, entrepreneurs. They know exactly what they are doing so they should be aware, as much as they can be, of what the rules are when they get into the game, so to speak. That lots of these people are naive and not really sure what is going to happen and what the processes, the procedures and the rules are, is not the most convincing argument I have heard from the Minister.

The message that we have to send to people who wish to set up businesses is, “You will get a welcoming environment. We welcome entrepreneurs. We welcome you being part of our business society and our business communities. But you have to play by the rules, and if you don’t, your business may face sanctions.” That is the message that we want to sell, especially in the light of the fact that we are moving out of the European Union. There are huge amounts of uncertainty in the economy, so we just want to let people know that if they do come into that environment, they will have to be careful to play by the rules.

I do not think that our proposals, particularly in amendment 57, are especially onerous. The amount of money—cash—that companies will make will be quite significant; they just have to be clear that they play by the rules. So despite the Minister’s silver tongue, we will press amendment 57 to a vote, to make a point.

Amendment 56 agreed to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(c) in any other case, £15,000.’”—(Peter Dowd.)

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

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 9

16 January 2018

The Committee divided:

Ayes: 9
Noes: 10

Question accordingly negatived.

View Details

Clause 38, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39

VAT refunds to public authorities

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

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 1—Review of retrospective VAT refunds for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the Scottish Police Authority

‘(1) Within one month of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall commission a review of the potential consequences of allowing the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the Scottish Police Authority to claim VAT refunds under section 33 of VATA 1994 retrospective to the date of their establishment.

(2) The review shall consider—

(a) the administrative consequences of allowing retrospective claims, and

(b) the impact on revenue of allowing retrospective claims.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay the report of this review before the House of Commons within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.’

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to commission a review into what the potential consequences of allowing the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the Scottish Police Authority to make retrospective claims for VAT refunds would be.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

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

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

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

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

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

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

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

You can’t—it’s a fact.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.
The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

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

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

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

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

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

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

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

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is worrying.

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

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

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

I thank the Labour Front-Bench spokesman for his support for the retrospective refund. If it is right to allow the VAT refund to be reclaimed now, it was right to do it four years ago when the changes were first made to fire services and the police in Scotland. Now that Scotland’s budget for frontline services has been reduced by £200 million, it is time for the Government to agree to give us back the money that our services have paid.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

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

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

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

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

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42

Landfill tax: disposals not made at landfill sites, etc

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

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

That schedule 12 be the Twelfth schedule to the Bill.

New clause 15—Landfill Tax disposals: review of changes to disposals within charge

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must commission a review of the changes to disposals for which Landfill Tax is chargeable within three months of the passing of this Act.

(2) The review under this section must consider—

(a) the effect on revenue of the changes,

(b) the impact on the volume of disposals at—

(i) sites with an environmental disposal permit, and

(ii) sites without an environmental disposal permit, and

(c) the impact of the changes on the prevalence of illegal disposal sites.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons the report of the review under this section within twelve months of the passing of this Act.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to commission and lay before the House of Commons a report into the effects of the changes to disposals for which Landfill Tax is chargeable on tax revenue and on the volume of disposals and the prevalence of illegal landfill sites.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

Clause 42 and schedule 12 extend the scope of landfill tax to disposals made at sites without an environmental permit, in order to prevent rogue operators from profiting by avoiding landfill tax. The clause also brings clarity to what material is taxable at sites that do have a permit. Landfill tax was introduced on 1 October 1996 to discourage the disposal of waste to landfill, and encourage more sustainable ways of managing waste. Since the introduction of the tax in the UK, landfilling has gone down by more than 60%. Illegal waste sites are a blight on local communities and can cause serious environmental damage. Although the Environment Agency can impose fines and criminal sanctions on operators of illegal sites, they are outside the scope of the tax. With no landfill tax to pay, rogue operators can undercut legitimate operators and make significant profits.

The Environmental Services Association estimates that waste crime costs the English economy over £600 million annually, with up to £200 million of tax being avoided. At the spring Budget in 2017, the Government announced a consultation on whether to extend the scope of landfill tax to illegal waste sites. Following strong support from industry, the Government confirmed their intention to legislate to extend the scope of landfill tax to illegal waste sites from 1 April 2018. Alongside this, in response to broad industry support in the consultation announced at Budget 2016, the Government are amending the definition of a taxable disposal. That follows a 2008 Court of Appeal ruling that some material received at a landfill site and put to certain uses is not waste, and therefore not taxable. That has created uncertainty about what constitutes a taxable disposal and has led to increased complexity for operators.

The changes being made by this clause will make all persons who are responsible for disposals at illegal waste sites, across the supply chain, jointly and severally liable for the tax. They may also be liable for a penalty of up to 100% of the tax, and in the most severe cases, HMRC will be able to prosecute those involved. In order to address the primary concern raised by stakeholders during the consultation, safeguards have been put in place to ensure that any genuinely innocent parties will not be liable for the tax. The clause will give industry certainty about what constitutes a taxable disposal. Currently, material is considered to be waste if certain criteria apply. The changes made by this clause will remove the waste criteria; instead, all material disposed of at a landfill site will be treated as taxable waste unless it is specifically covered by an exception.

To simplify the system further, we are also removing the requirement to notify HMRC of restoration activities undertaken at a landfill site. These changes will support the legitimate waste management industry by simplifying the tax system and providing clarity for landfill operators.

Let me turn briefly to new clause 15, tabled by Opposition Members. This would require the Government to commission a review of these changes within three months of the passing of this Act. A full assessment of the impacts of this measure was published in September 2017. At that time, the Government assessed that the measure would increase the cost of the illegal disposal of waste at unauthorised sites and incentivise the disposal of waste at legal—and more environmentally friendly—waste management operations. Following this, the Office for Budget Responsibility published an assessment of the revenue impact of the changes; £145 million is expected over the five years following implementation. Those impacts were assessed with the full support of the waste industry, and after further contributions from the Environment Agency.

Information about landfill tax revenues and the volume of disposals is publically available. HMRC publishes its landfill tax receipts twice yearly. The Environment Agency publishes additional information annually about disposals at permitted sites and the number of illegal waste sites in England. As such, the Government’s view is that the proposed review is unnecessary. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

The clause amends the Finance Act 1996 to include disposals at sites without an environmental tax disposal permit within the charge to landfill tax.

I would like to declare an interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton, will appreciate this; it is not to do with landfill tax, but it is important to give some context. We have a huge dock complex in my constituency. On several occasions in the past couple of years, the scrap metal kept there has gone up in flames, and it has taken days and huge amounts of public resource to get the fire under control. We have had many discussions with the organisations concerned, although that is not landfill. A fire at an illegal waste transfer centre in Hawthorne Road—in a residential area—took a week to put out. There were huge plumes of smoke for weeks on end. [Interruption.] That is probably the fire chief now, telling me there is another fire. I hope not. The issue of waste disposal, landfill, and the whole area relating to waste is very important.

The landfill tax was brought in nearly 20 years ago to act as a disincentive to landfilling material, encourage the use of recycled material and incentivise recycling more broadly. The tax is due on material disposed of at landfill sites in England, Wales and Northern Ireland that have an environmental permit or licence for waste disposal.

HMRC collects the tax from the permitted operators of landfill sites based on the weight and type of material landfilled. There are two rates of tax: a standard rate of £86 a tonne, and a lower rate of £2.70 for the least polluting material. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the national environmental protection agencies are responsible for the regulation and enforcement of environmental policy.

I could talk for another hour or two on the issue as it relates to my constituency, but on this occasion, I will spare everybody. Although HMRC is responsible for the administration and collection of the landfill tax, and there are a range of civil and criminal powers to address tax evasion and non-compliance, the question is whether HMRC gets on and does that.

Over the past 20 years of the tax, landfilling has come down by almost 60%, which is a positive achievement for society, but we cannot continue to produce this volume of goods made of materials that vastly outlast the use of the goods. That was the subject of an item on Radio 4 this morning, featuring the chief executive of Iceland. What we are doing is leading to huge accumulations of waste across the land, and the pollution of our ocean, as the recent BBC documentary “Blue Planet” demonstrated so powerfully. It is therefore positive that the Government are extending this disincentive to those operating illegally, to ensure that where enforcement is weak, a further layer of disincentive is put in place.

The Government’s consultation set out the logic of that extension, using the examples of three people who were fined by environmental agencies for illegally dumping 6,000 tonnes of waste. Under the law, they can be fined only through environmental protection levies, which in this case amounted to £170,000. However, if further legislation had been put in place to extend the territories that could be included under the landfill tax, that fine could have been as much as £500,000, plus a penalty of 100% of the tax and interest.

The landfill tax gap—the difference between what is collected and the estimates of what it should be—is £150 million, not including the waste dumped at illegal sites. There is clearly much more to be done to address this problem. Strangely, however, the Government’s impact assessment does not include information on Exchequer impacts of this extended tax. Fortunately, the OBR is here to help, with a prediction that tackling waste crime will raise £30 million in the first year. That will rise to roughly £45 million a year after. Will the Minister explain why the OBR believes that this measure will recoup only a third of the revenue that the Government estimate is missing? I am sure he will have the figures available, even if not today. As far as I can see, it does not seem a particularly good return on investment.

The Government’s own assessment argues that HMRC is not properly resourced to deal with this burden. As the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I have heard that complaint over and over. As a result, I have raised the issue many times—only last week on Second Reading of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, I dedicated a section of my speech to the problem of HMRC under-resourcing—yet we still have not received any commitment from the Government to dealing with the problem.

Will the Minister respond to the request from his own Government assessment that specifies that a further £600,000 is required annually to deal with the practical implications of the clause? If so, how much additional funding is set aside to deal with the issue of waste crime? Will it be the full £600,000 requested? How many additional staff does HMRC plan to recruit for that money, and will those staff members work solely on matters relating to waste crime? What is the timetable for recruitment, and by what date will the Government have met the request? The Minister may wish to give some thought to that series of practical questions. Any light he could shed on that would be helpful.

This is another classic case of the Government asking authorities to do more, despite getting less. That is beginning to wear a little thin. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) spoke on Second Reading of a previous Finance Bill in an extensive, comprehensive exploration of, among other things, fraud in relation to landfill sites. He also asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in November 2014,

“what the budget is of HM Revenue and Customs to investigate landfill tax fraud”.

That elicited the following response, though I have redacted it a little bit:

“In addition to these visits and audit checks, HMRC has launched a cross-tax waste sector pilot exercise which is currently under way, where cases are being worked across all taxes, rather than just landfill tax. HMRC is also working collaboratively with other agencies to tackle non-compliance and develop a joined up multi-agency strategy, capitalising on the full range of sanctions available.”

I read that as saying that the Chancellor did not know, and little has changed.

There are also overarching concerns here. One is whether the Government are doing enough to deal with landfill more broadly. That goes to the heart of the need for a review, whether after three, six, 12 or 18 months, or after two years. The Opposition are shackled to some extent in challenging the Bill and in the amendments that we can suggest to it; we can only ask for reviews. It is important to get the message out there that we would like to do far more through the Bill, but we are restricted by the amendment to the law resolution that the Government introduced.

The Prime Minister has acquired an interest in environmental issues, which could have been sparked by the documentary makers at the BBC. It may even be to do with the high turnout among some younger age groups at the previous election. That will remain a mystery—perhaps until the next election. Nevertheless, she has made a series of promises regarding reducing plastic waste, some of which may come to fruition in two or three decades.

The use of landfill is central to the question of sustainability, and it is a glaring reminder of the scale of the challenge ahead and the need for a bold Government who are prepared to act. However, the most recent statistics show that under this Government, the rate of recycling is falling for the first time since data collection began. The UK is obliged to recycle 50% of its waste by 2020, yet we are floundering at around 44%. That means we put 50 million tonnes of waste in landfill every year—an astonishing amount.

The Government’s failure—given those figures, it is a failure—to get to grips with this record is pretty grim. If the Government are serious about doing so, they have to step up to the plate. For example, the waste and recycling company SUEZ has warned that the UK faces a disaster scenario in which waste is trucked around the country in search of landfill sites if the Government do not wake up. It also points at the Government’s failure to commit to a clear policy on new waste facilities as a central driver of their mounting concerns over waste management, along with a Chinese crackdown on the importation of recycling material and the potential impact of Brexit.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman return to the new clause?

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

Fine. The point I am trying to make is that landfill capacity across the UK has decreased from thousands of sites, with only about 50 sites predicted to be in operation by 2020. Although we have talked about the period of time that our proposed reviews should cover, it is crucial that this one takes place not once, but regularly. The issue is serious, as I have set out.

Crucially, regional capacity also varies greatly, and the Government are not tackling that. This review will help us to identify the differences in a systematic way. For example, Kent is likely to have no landfill sites at all by 2021, according to SUEZ, which suggests that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does not have the resources to look at its concerns. Perhaps if the tax was sent in the right direction, the Department would have the capacity. Although it is not his Department, I ask the Financial Secretary what contingency planning DEFRA has put in place in case the record on recycling worsens. It is important that the suggestion of a review is taken into account.

This proposal extends charges to illegal landfill. Illegal landfill will only increase if we begin to produce more waste than our capacity can handle. How does the Minister plan to deal with excess waste that surpasses our current capacity? He may want to pass that question on to one of his hon. Friends. Under the Prime Minister’s plan, by of which year will the UK end the use of landfill completely? How are we going to keep tabs on that, and what systematic process will we use? If we use the same methodology that the Chancellor used to get the deficit down, we will all be pushing up daisies by the time it is sorted. We hope that the clause will ensure that landfill waste falls, across both permitted and illegal sites, but the Government seem to be unable to tell us exactly how much landfill will be diverted into ecologically sound management as a result. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us about those projections.

That is why we have tabled a new clause that is designed to establish how much revenue this measure will generate, as well as to measure the behavioural impact that it sets out to achieve. Our suggested review would look at the impact of extending landfill tax on the volume of disposals at both permitted and illegal sites. Alongside that, we believe it is important to measure the impact on the prevalence of illegal sites, as well as the amount of waste disposed at them. Everybody on the Committee recognises the importance of consigning landfill to the dustbin of history. To do so would deliver unquantifiable ecological effects and would, we hope, form part of a new respect shown by our society for the environment on which we rely.

Extending taxation to illegal sites will deliver a reduction in landfill, and it can therefore only be a good thing. I commend the Financial Secretary for introducing this measure. It is all the more important that the Government monitor and assess the impact of the measure, as well as investing revenue to ensure that it is enforced. We hope that all Members present today will support our review, in the name of good governance, to ensure that the UK continues to take steps towards no longer producing damaging and unnecessary landfill.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

I thank the hon. Member for Bootle for commending us for introducing this measure. Many of his remarks were fairly wide-ranging, and I think he recognised that some of them—for example, those concerning the amount of landfill that we have available and what our plans for it might be—related to other Departments. I hope that he will indulge me when I say that on those issues, it might be better for him to go direct to the Departments concerned.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

I take your exhortation to keep things as tight as possible, Mr Owen, but there are occasions—I have asked the Minister about this—on which Departments really ought to work closely together to ensure that we have the balance right. That is difficult sometimes when we are doing something specific and technical. Nevertheless, I am sure he will agree that it is important to be able to bring other factors into the equation and get a proper bigger picture.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

I am grateful. Before the Minister proceeds, as both hon. Members have agreed that this is outside the remit of the Bill, I ask them both to confine their remarks to the Bill.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

Thank you for your guidance, Mr Owen. This is predominantly a tax Bill, and I will endeavour to stick to matters relating to that aspect of our considerations. However, there is much that the hon. Gentleman and I can agree on. We agree that we certainly need to cut down on the amount of disposable items out there; he gave some shocking examples of where the situation had got completely out of hand and of the damage to the environment.

The hon. Gentleman spent some time speaking about the landfill tax gap and how much tax we might be forgoing because we do not currently tax illegal sites. By definition, given that illegal sites do not fall to the charge of landfill tax, they are not included in the figures for tax forgone, because there is no mechanism by which they can be taxed. The whole purpose of the clause is to bring them into the scope of taxation. He asked how much the measure is expected to raise once we have brought those illegal sites into the scope of the tax, and the answer is £145 billion over the scorecard period.

The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions about resourcing and HMRC. At Budget, we announced that we would provide funding for additional HMRC staff to enforce the measure. We have also announced that we are investing an additional £30 million in the Environment Agency in England, to enable the agency to tackle the illegal waste sites as well as the misdescription of waste and illegal exports. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 12 agreed to.

Clause 43

Air passenger duty: rates of duty from 1 April 2019

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

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 16—Review of changes to rates of air passenger duty

“(1) No later than 31 March 2019, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects of the changes made by section 43 to rates of air passenger duty set out in Chapter 4 of Part 1 of FA 1994.

(2) The review under this section must consider—

(a) the effect on airplane usage as a result of the changes to air passenger duty rates, and

(b) the effectiveness of the changes to air passenger duty on reducing carbon emissions and meeting carbon emissions targets.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons the report of the review under this section as soon as practicable after its completion.”

This new clause provides for a review of the effects of the changes to air passenger duty rates on airplane usage and carbon emissions.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

Clause 43 sets air passenger duty rates for the tax year 2019-20. All short-haul rates and the long-haul economy rate will remain frozen at the 2018-19 level. Only those flying long haul in business or first class, or by private jet, will pay more. The changes will ensure that the aviation sector continues to contribute to general taxation while also providing a freeze for more than 95% of all passengers.

Air passenger duty is a per-passenger tax levied on airlines. With no tax on aviation fuel or VAT on international or domestic flights, APD ensures that the aviation sector plays its part in general taxation, raising £3.1 billion a year. The aviation sector continues to perform strongly. The UK has the third largest aviation network in the world, and passenger numbers at UK airports have been strong: in fact, growth has exceeded 15% in the previous five years.

Clause 43 will set the APD rates for the tax year 2019-20. The Government are freezing all short-haul rates, as we have done since 2012. We are also keeping frozen the long-haul reduced rate, which affects all passengers travelling long haul in economy class. Together, this approach benefits more than 95% of all passengers. The changes being made by clause 43 therefore only affect the APD rates for passengers flying long haul in the premium bands.

The long-haul standard rate, which applies to premium economy, business and first-class tickets, will increase by £16 compared with 2018-19 levels, to £172. That means that a passenger purchasing a £1,000 premium economy ticket to New York will pay only an additional 1.6% and a passenger travelling to the same destination on a £4,000 business class ticket will pay only an additional 0.4%.

Clause 43 also increases the higher rate for passengers travelling long haul in private and business jets by £47. Together, the changes will affect less than 5% of passengers. To give the industry sufficient notice, we will announce APD rates for 2020-21 at autumn Budget 2018, legislating in next year’s Finance Bill.

The Opposition have proposed a new clause asking for a review of the effects of the changes on aeroplane usage and carbon emissions by 31 March 2019. I appreciate that hon. Members want to ensure that the Government continually assess their policies, but a review of that nature is unnecessary for a number of reasons. First, the Government already keep aeroplane usage under review. HMRC publishes passenger number statistics as part of the air passenger duty bulletin, which is updated yearly. As I have outlined, the data show that passenger numbers at UK airports have been strong, with growth exceeding 15% in the past five years.

Secondly, the Government have taken strong action at a global level to address carbon emissions from aviation. For example, the UK worked very hard through the International Civil Aviation Organisation to reach agreement on the carbon offsetting and reduction scheme for international aviation in October 2016. It is the first worldwide scheme to address carbon emissions in any single sector, and it sends a strong signal that international aviation is committed to taking action to tackle climate change.

Finally, airlines sell tickets up to a year in advance, so legislating now for 2019-20 APD rates provides certainty to operators. Undertaking a review of APD before 31 March 2019, as suggested in new clause 16, may reduce certainty for taxpayers. The new clause also asks us to review the effect of tax rates before they come into effect, which of course would be difficult. That is in the interests of neither companies nor consumers.

On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Bootle to withdraw the new clause, and I commend clause 43 to the Committee.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

It is a pleasure to be speaking with you in the Chair, Mr Owen. I thank the Minister for his clarifying comments. We on the Labour Benches still wish to have the review proposed in new clause 16. The review would, exactly as described by the Minister, examine the impact of the APD changes on the usage of aeroplanes and their emissions.

On one hand, it is helpful that we are shifting towards greater predictability for air operators and consumers around air passenger duty. It seems appropriate that we have the lag so that we can discuss and determine future rates, rather than having short-term change, but we would like a much stronger indication of the direction of Government thinking in relation to the tax.

The Minister offered the same argument for air passenger duty, to a word, as the one we were given in the previous Finance Bill discussion:

“With no tax on aviation fuel or VAT on international and domestic flights, APD ensures that the aviation sector plays its part in contributing towards general taxation, raising £3.1 billion per annum.”––[Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 24 October 2017; c. 111.]

In our discussions in Committee on APD changes in the previous Finance Bill, we went on to talk about the potential environmental impact. I note that at that stage, the Minister said:

“Like all taxes, it will also change behaviour to some degree, and to the extent that it makes flying a little bit more expensive, it could be expected to have the effect of diminishing demand for air travel. The lower rates for economy, which takes up more space on aircraft than first class, assist in ensuring that flights are as full as they can be.”––[Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 24 October 2017; c. 114.]

We would find it very helpful to have a review. I take on board the Minister’s point about regular information about the operation of APD, but what we do not have at the moment, to my knowledge—if I am wrong, the Minister can set me right—is an indication of the relative merits of this approach against potential others.

A number of transport economists and environmentalists have looked at the impact of levying duty on entire planes, rather than on individuals. The thought was that that would somehow lead to more incentives for more efficient use of space. I take on board the differential rates for private jets and small planes as against larger planes, which tend to be fuller during economy use, but it would be helpful to know whether there will be more impetus towards more intensive use of planes that are already in the air but all of whose seats are perhaps not being used. For the Opposition, that would be part of the stronger analysis of the impact of the duty, compared with other approaches. It would be part of the more general review that we feel we need on the overall impact of environmental taxes and reliefs, so that we can be sure that they are targeted as well as they can be for both economic and environmental purposes.

There are a couple of other issues on which we need clarification. We had a debate on the first during proceedings on the previous Finance Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and others raised the matter when they talked about the extent of consultation on existing measures. There are higher rates for long haul in the proposals, as in the existing APD regime, but many Britons have no choice but to travel long haul if their family is in the Caribbean, the Indian subcontinent and so on. The Minister at the time made a commitment to write to my hon. Friend on the extent of consultation with groups of people who might be particularly affected. It would be helpful to have on the record the thoughts of the Minister in Committee on that issue, especially because, in many ways, short-haul flights are a lot easier for people to avoid than long-haul ones, because they can adopt other forms of transport instead. Any indications about that would be useful.

It would also be helpful to have an indication of the Government’s thinking about the extent to which they will be able to protect, or otherwise, revenue from APD. Arguably, we are seeing a race to the bottom on the duty. In previous Finance Bill Committees, we have discussed the new system in Scotland—the air departure tax. Clause 43 increases the band B multiplier in Northern Ireland. From the way in which it is written, I assume that that is happening in the absence of the Stormont arrangements coming back into play and giving the Northern Ireland Assembly control, so we are talking about an increase until the Assembly can make a determination.

Generally, however, the direction of travel appears to be downward, and it would be helpful to know the Treasury’s long-term thinking. We have a lot of pressure from airports, particularly those near Scotland, about whether they can protect their business given the potential reductions in the duty in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) has made that point in the House.

Furthermore, we need consideration of the issue, given the discussion we had in the Chamber only a couple of hours ago, when a Minister—I appreciate that it was not the one in Committee, who is well apprised of all the issues relating to air passenger duty—seemed to indicate that we might change the extent to which we levy duty on incoming flights to the UK, departing from the existing practice under EU rules. That might be a possibility, but it would naturally have an impact on revenues. It would be helpful, again, if the Government indicated how the revenue—the £3.1 billion to which the Minister referred—will be protected.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

I need not repeat my earlier remarks about the reviews we already carry out, and I reiterate the point that the new clause, as worded, would implement a review of the possible impact of the taxation we are considering before such taxation had come into effect, which as an exercise is possibly not that valuable. Of course, we always keep all taxes under review. The hon. Lady talked about seeking beneficial behavioural change through mechanisms other than APD, for example. I am happy to receive any representations that she might make in that vein.

The hon. Lady mentioned her colleague, the hon. Member for Luton North, and the impact of APD on passengers who require a long-haul flight to visit relatives. I will certainly get back to her on that when I return to the Treasury. She also mentioned competition between different airports following the devolution of APD. Scotland will in due course bring in its own form of ADT. She also referred to the Northern Ireland situation. It will be for each of those tax jurisdictions to start to take whatever measures they think are appropriate to ensure that their particular airports and passengers are not disadvantaged. I suspect that, as with competing tax rates, the dynamics will probably be for those tax rates to come down, as a result of the competitive effect or the fact that there is a devolved Government. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 43 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44

VED: rates for light passenger vehicles, light goods vehicles, motorcycles etc

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

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

The Opposition have received a submission that it is worth asking a question about. It is about the specific case of taxis that are zero-emission capable. As I understand it, they will be exempt from the VED supplement from 1 April 2019, but not until then. There is the complication that taxis are classified as passenger cars because they are built to carry passengers, rather than as commercial vehicles, although in practice they are not really operating as commercial vehicles, which means that at the moment they are subject to the VED standard rates.

As those of us who have done any casework on this will know, taxi drivers need to purchase their car for a long period and there are complicated financing arrangements. In many areas we are keen to promote zero-emission taxis, or taxis that will be capable of transferring to zero or low-emission bases in future. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister whether some further calibration could be done on this measure, so as not to choke off the development of zero-emission capable taxis. I thought the submission was quite interesting in that regard.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

I thank the hon. Lady for her question about taxis. We will publish a consultation this spring, which will clarify who will and will not be eligible for the exemption and address the issues she has raised.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45

Tobacco products duty: rates

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

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 17—Review of changes to rates of duty on tobacco products

“(1) Within twelve months of the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects of the changes made by section 45 to rates of excise duty on tobacco products and the Minimum Excise Tax on cigarettes.

(2) The review under this section must consider—

(a) the effect of the changes on smoking cessation, and

(b) the effect on revenue of the changes in each financial year until 2027-28.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons the report of the review under this section as soon as practicable after its completion.”

This new clause provides for a review of the effect of changes to duty on tobacco products on smoking cessation and on revenue for each financial year until 2027-28.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

Clause 45 implements changes announced at the autumn Budget 2017 concerning tobacco duty rates. The duty charged on all tobacco products will rise in line with the tobacco duty escalator, with an additional 1% rise for hand-rolled tobacco. Smoking rates in the UK are falling, but they are still too high. Just under 16% of adults are now smokers. We have ambitious plans to reduce that still further, as set out by the Department of Health and Social Care in its tobacco control plan, which includes a commitment to continue the policy of maintaining high duty rates for tobacco products in order to improve public health.

The UK now has comprehensive tobacco control legislation that is the envy of the world, but smoking is still the single largest cause of preventable illness and premature death in the UK—it accounts for around 100,000 deaths per year and kills about half of all long-term users. According to Action on Smoking and Health, smoking costs society almost £14 billion a year in England, including £2 billion in costs to the NHS for treating diseases caused by smoking.

In the autumn Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the Government are committed to maintaining the tobacco duty escalator until the end of this Parliament. The clause therefore specifies that the duty charged on all tobacco products will rise by 2% above RPI—retail prices index—inflation. In addition, duty on hand-rolled tobacco will rise by an additional 1% this year.

The clause also specifies that the minimum excise tax—the minimum amount of duty to be paid on a pack of cigarettes—will rise in line with wider cigarette duty. Those new tobacco duty rates will be treated as taking effect from 6 pm on the day that they were announced, 22 November 2017.

New clause 17 seeks to place a statutory requirement on my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to review the effects of changes to tobacco duty. The Opposition have raised important issues. The Government are committed to reducing smoking prevalence and co-ordinating efforts through the tobacco control delivery plan, which is a cross-Department project, led by the Department of Health and Social Care and Public Health England, that seeks to prevent individuals smoking, support current smokers to quit and enforce tobacco regulations.

Tax policy is one part of that plan, alongside various other measures, including effective regulation and public awareness campaigns. The plan is the framework for robust and ongoing policy evaluation. Furthermore, the Chancellor assesses the impact of all potential changes in his Budget considerations every year. The tax information and impact note published alongside the Budget announcement sets out the Government’s assessment of the expected impacts. Detail on the revenue impact is set out in the policy costings document, also published alongside the Budget. Both include the expected revenue impact to 2022-23.

The Office for Budget Responsibility expects tobacco clearances to fall, as the long-term trend in the decline in smoking within the population continues. We therefore expect tobacco duty receipts to fall in the longer term. Accordingly, we will review our duty rates at each fiscal event to ensure that it continues to meet our two objectives of protecting public health and raising revenue for our vital public services. I commend the clause to the Committee.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

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

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

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

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

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

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

Order. The health implications are important, but we need to get back to the issue.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

Labour said that we would prioritise having a special programme focused on young smokers. The point I am trying to make is that the Minister said this was part of a suite of measures, but he only mentioned public health information campaigns in addition, from what I can remember—I will check Hansard to see whether that is correct. The evidence strongly suggests that if we just increase duty, as we are doing now, without that suite of extra measures, we are not going to see the number of people stopping smoking that we really need. We have also seen cuts in trading services, which potentially is enabling more young people to access cigarettes than should be the case. For all those reasons, we urge the Government to review the effectiveness of this measure on overall smoking cessation rates, and we will continue to push for that review.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

The hon. Lady raised the issue of the potential substitution effect in individuals trying to avoid the priced-in tax on cigarettes by purchasing illegal cigarettes, which might increase the amount of illegal trade. I can tell her that tacking illicit tobacco is a key priority for the Government. Since 2000 the UK has adopted a strategic approach, with a wide range of policy and operational responses, in collaboration with other enforcement agencies in the UK and overseas. That effort has achieved a long-term reducing trend in the illicit tobacco market, despite duty rates increasing substantially over the same period. The percentage tax gap for cigarettes was reduced from 22% to 15% and for hand-rolling tobacco from 61% to 28%, so there appears to be some evidence that the substitution effect, or the increase in illicit tobacco coming into the country, is not quite as sensitive to some of the tax rises as one might instinctively imagine.

The hon. Lady asked what other measures the Government are engaged in to try to reduce smoking. As I have said, we are committed to reducing the prevalence of smoking through our tobacco control delivery plan 2017 to 2022, which also provides the framework for robust and ongoing policy evaluation. The plan sets out ambitious objectives to reduce smoking prevalence, including reducing the number of 15-year-olds who regularly smoke from 8% to 3% or less, reducing smoking among adults in England from 15.5% to 12% or less, reducing the inequality gap in smoking prevalence between those in routine and manual occupations and the general population—that touches on her point about the potentially regressive nature of tobacco tax—and reducing the prevalence of smoking in pregnancy from 10.5% to 6% or less.

We will of course continue to keep those measures under constant review. In fact, tobacco and smoking is one of the areas of public policy on which Governments of all colours have placed particular emphasis. There is a huge amount of scrutiny in that area and we will continue in that vein.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 45 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46

Power to enter premises and inspect goods

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

I beg to move amendment 60, in clause 46, page 40, line 18, at end insert—

“(9A) The powers under subsections (1) to (6) of this section are not available in any case where—

(a) information has been provided on oath by an officer in accordance with section 161A(1) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (power to enter premises: search warrant) and a justice of the peace has not issued a warrant in consequence, or

(b) an officer could reasonably have been expected to seek a warrant in accordance with the provisions of that section of that Act.”

This amendment provides that the powers to enter premises and search goods may not be exercised in cases where a warrant to search premises in relation to goods subject to forfeiture has been sought and refused or where such a warrant could reasonably be sought.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 46 stand part.

Clause 47 stand part.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

As I said earlier, the Opposition are well aware that we need serious measures to tackle VAT evasion in this country. A National Audit Office report published in 2017 revealed:

“HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) estimates that online VAT fraud and error cost between £1 billion and £1.5 billion in lost tax revenue”.

I referred to that figure earlier, but no one is certain that it is accurate. I also referred earlier to the fact that 14.5% of sales in Britain in 2016 took place online. I reaffirm what I said pretty unambiguously in my earlier speech: the number of online sales is growing and growing, so it is essential that we get to grips with VAT evasion. The picture has the potential to become more complex, depending on our direction of travel in relation to Europe.

We are absolutely clear that evasion is not acceptable and must be clamped down on. The National Audit Office report highlighted:

“UK trader groups believe the problem is widespread, and that some of the biggest online sellers of particular products, such as mobile phone accessories, are not charging VAT”

at all. It is therefore important that robust action is taken to address the issue before it creates an even bigger tax gap. We have already discussed the potential for that in clause 38, where we think the Government need to take a different approach.

That said, we have serious concerns over the scope of clause 46 in relation to that issue. The clause seems to give HMRC officials pretty wide-ranging and almost uncurbed powers to enter premises and search vehicles and vessels. There might be a civil rights issue regarding that power, and, as a result, the rules might be open to significant abuse. Although it is clear that action must be taken to tackle tax avoidance, we are worried that not enough thought and consideration are being given to the potential impact of the new powers. Indeed, this is evident in the Government’s own tax information and impact note on the measure, which was published just a couple of years ago, on 5 December 2016.

The delay here is notable, as this piece of legislation was originally intended for last year’s Finance Bill. It was postponed because of the general election and failed to appear in the Ways and Means resolutions once the Bill resurfaced. We have tabled an amendment to add a much-needed layer of security and protection for individual rights, while giving officers what they need to pursue suspicious vehicles or vessels and search buildings as necessary. As a result of our amendment, those actions would not be permitted if they did not satisfy the conditions usually needed for a search warrant. That would at least provide some judicial oversight and security for a procedure that could give HMRC and, potentially, other agencies carte blanche—I am not saying that they would do this—to abuse powers with no recourse.

The transformation of online retail in the UK in recent years has brought with it an unprecedented challenge in policing our ports and docks to ensure that customs law is complied with. As a Member of Parliament who has a huge port in my constituency, I appreciate that, but the Government are failing to allocate the proper resources to HMRC to enable it to supply enough officers to meet the challenge. Lack of resources is a running theme, and we are not making this up. The Government cannot substitute for those resources wide-ranging powers to interfere in the matters that I have referred to. This is before we have even considered the yawning tax gap brought about by the convoluted tax planning of major corporations.

Another recent report by the Public and Commercial Services Union spelled out how serious the problem is. In spite of the huge challenges we face in cross-border online trading and closing the tax gap—they should mean that HMRC is given more resources, not less—the PCS report shows that, year on year, there have been real-terms cuts to HMRC for more than a decade. Clauses 46 and 47 highlight two major failures on the Government’s part: a failure to consider the crucial question of how tax prevention activities connect to citizens’ rights and put in place proper safeguards to protect them, and a failure to resource HMRC.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and observations. Clause 46, as he pointed out, extends HMRC’s existing powers, allowing it to examine goods thoroughly away from ports, airports and other approved places that are under customs control. The power is expected to be exercised mainly in situations in which goods have been mis-declared at import and thus the correct amount of duty has not been paid.

Under their current legislative powers, HMRC officers working inland and post clearance are not permitted to examine and take account of customs goods; that includes opening, marking, weighing, loading and unloading them. Under section 24 of the Finance Act 1994, a customs officer has the power to enter the premises of a business that contains goods subject to customs duty, and to inspect those goods. That means that if there is reasonable cause to think that there has been a violation of customs law, an officer is only allowed to pick up and inspect goods visible at those premises. Today, HMRC officers often investigate sophisticated frauds involving customs goods, the majority of which are at inland premises and not within the confines of approved places such as ports and airports. It is therefore essential that officers are empowered not only to enter and inspect, but to examine and take account of goods.

The changes made by clause 46 will extend officers’ powers to examine goods thoroughly post clearance, inland, where a customs offence is suspected. The power covers all customs offences, but current operational experience suggests it will be largely used where goods have been mis-declared at import. The clause will enable officers to examine and take account of goods found on premises. It will allow the officer to mark, move, open or unpack goods or containers, or require a relevant person to provide assistance that is reasonable for the purpose of examining the goods. As the search power is for the purpose of searching containers, boxes and so on and not the premises, a warrant is not needed.

Amendment 60 seeks to deny HMRC those powers in cases where a search warrant has been sought and refused, or where a warrant could reasonably be sought. The purpose of entry under section 24 will be to carry out compliance checks, which will include examining goods to ensure they comply with any paperwork. That cannot be done effectively under the current power, because it only allows the inspection of goods.

Section 24 is not—and is not intended to be—a substitute for seeking a warrant. A warrant will be used when there is a need to enter and search a building or place where there are reasonable grounds to suspect the presence of forfeitable goods. A warrant also grants the power to force open doors and windows and open any obstruction. Unlike section 24, warrants can be used outside of business hours. If a warrant to enter and search a building or place was required and refused, the amendment could not be used to gain access.

We are amending these customs powers to ensure they work effectively, not as a means of unduly expanding customs power. At the moment, officers can merely pick up goods that are immediately visible to them, but on some occasions that is not enough. For example, to ensure that the contents of a box correspond to the relevant paperwork, it is necessary to be able to look inside the box and examine the goods. Under section 24, all visits are strictly regulated. They must be carried out during business hours, and most visits will be pre-booked, routine compliance visits. Officers currently receive training in how to conduct visits, which includes the legal basis and powers available to them. In addition, stringent rules, safeguards and guidance place limitations on an officer’s powers, ensuring that they are used proportionately and only where necessary. That will be updated when the measure is introduced.

The measure will extend the powers available to officers when visiting premises where there are customs goods. It will allow them to take account and examine goods thoroughly, making operational duties more effective. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

We take the Minister’s reassurances and explanation at face value. I am sure he will appreciate that, from that our side, the civil liberties issues are absolutely crucial. We will not be pressing the amendment to a vote but, given the civil liberties issues, we will be keeping a very close watch on the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 48

CO2 emissions figures etc

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

I beg to move amendment 61, in clause 48, page 42, line 15, leave out from “effect” to end of line 16 and insert

“from the date on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer lays before the House of Commons a report of the review carried out under subsection (13).

(13) A review under this subsection shall consider the appropriateness of the use of the New European Driving Cycle methodology for calculating carbon dioxide emissions for the purposes of the provisions amended by this section.

(14) A review under subsection (13) shall also consider the effects if carbon dioxide emissions were to be calculated for the purposes of the provisions amended by this section using the Worldwide harmonized Light-duty vehicles Test Procedure including

(a) the effects on the operation of those provisions,

(b) the revenue effects, and

(c) the effects on progress towards the Government’s targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions.”

This amendment requires a pre-commencement review of the appropriateness of the current regime for calculating carbon dioxide emissions and the effects of a change to the WLTP procedure.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 48 stand part.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

As we move towards the denouement of today’s proceedings, I thank you for your chairmanship, Sir Roger. The formalities will ensue later on, no doubt.

Clause 48 is designed to ensure that a car’s carbon dioxide emissions for the purpose of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 and the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 will remain based on the existing testing regime known as the new European driving cycle. I hope that that is not the cycle we were referring to earlier. This is a Government clarification, following the introduction of a new regime for calculating CO2 emissions that is called worldwide harmonised light-duty vehicles test procedures, or WLTP.

I always welcome clarifications, as the Minister well knows. This clause specifically relates to the car benefit charge and car fuel benefit charge, which are duties paid by motorists and employers who provide and use company cars. Those charges are calculated using CO2 emission figures published by a car’s manufacturer. Higher emission vehicles are subject to higher charges than are vehicles with a smaller environmental footprint.

We need to examine the implications of the clause quite closely, especially in the light of the Government’s recent interest in the environment. I expect, as I alluded to earlier, that that is an attempt to enamour young people, and so far they have not taken the bait. This clause, which attempts to demonstrate the Prime Minister’s commitment to environmental protection, demonstrates that that commitment is not as deep as it could be. Before we examine the particulars, it is useful to reflect on the reason why the EU developed new emissions testing procedures—the WLTP and the real driving emissions test—which the Government are effectively suggesting we ignore.

In September 2015, the automotive sector was plunged into crisis when the Volkswagen Group admitted that it had installed defeat device software in 11 million vehicles that had been sold across the globe. The implications of that still rumble on. It was a clear case of corporate deception, in which vehicles were mis-sold using information that suggested that their environmental footprint was smaller than it was. The Transport Committee’s report into the scandal described how it

“brought the integrity of the auto sector into disrepute”

and “led to confusion”.

The same report points out, however, that although the case was one of corporate deception, it was also a matter of regulatory failure. The automotive sector is a large part of the UK’s manufacturing base, accounting for nearly £7 billion of turnover and more than £15 billion of value added, and roughly 1 million people are employed in the industry across the UK. It is clearly an important part of the economy, and that is all the more reason to ensure that it is properly regulated and trusted by the British public. I know that the Minister will completely agree with that.

The Transport Committee suggested, however, that regulators have known for years that the test used to measure emissions—the very same new European driving cycle test that the Government suggest we should continue to rely on—is unfit for purpose. The test was introduced in the 1990s and, in the words of the Select Committee, it

“has become unrepresentative of modern vehicle technology and real-world driving.”

Under the NEDC, testing takes place under laboratory conditions that are not reflective of real-world driving where, for example, speed and temperature differ.

You may be wondering, Mr Owen, why the specifics of emissions testing should be of concern to Members. One reason is that the evidence around the impact of car emissions on public health is stark. A growing body of evidence shows that nitrogen oxides are a significant hazard to human health. They can increase the risk of heart attacks, strokes and low birth weight, and they can aggravate a number of other lung and pulmonary conditions. According to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, nitrogen oxides contribute to 23,500 deaths a year. That is why it is so vital that we get testing right and strengthen enforcement to ensure that a corporate deception akin to the Volkswagen scandal can never happen again.

Indeed, the European Union developed the new emissions testing framework as a direct response to some car manufacturers’ bad behaviour with regard to emissions testing. It is therefore odd that the Government should choose to stick to the old system for the purposes of taxation. The question is: why do they seek to do that? My assumption is that they know that taxing emissions on the basis of the new testing procedures will increase the level of taxation being applied through the car benefit charge and the car fuel benefit charge.

The Transport Committee report to which I made reference suggested that the Government should publish information explaining how vehicles tested under the WLTP compare with those tested under the new European driving cycle. Is that information in the public domain? Can the Minister confirm whether the Department has assessed the effects on the Exchequer of using the new testing regimes to calculate the amount of tax due, and can he set out the results of those assessments in due course?

My office made contact with the International Council on Clean Transportation Europe, which identified VW’s deception in 2015 and passed the information on to the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The council was clear that the type approval carbon dioxide emission values are expected to be about 20% higher under the new WLTP test than under the NEDC testing procedure, which the Government are suggesting that we stick to. The council said that that was due to a more dynamic speed profile, a more realistic vehicle test mass, lower ambient temperature and other conditions that reflect more closely typical real-world driving conditions.

However, the council informed my office that the political consideration has already been made regarding the jump in emissions figures through the testing regime, and that adjustment has been made to ensure that only three quarters of any increase in emissions will be counted. Can the Minister explain whether the Government have considered a similar compromise in the taxation being applied to emissions—one that recognises that the new tests are a better reflection of the actual emissions being produced, but that does not penalise those paying the car benefit charge and the car fuel benefit charge to the full amount?

That may be an important consideration. After all, despite the intricacies of the detail, there is a bigger issue at stake. Only a few days ago, the Prime Minister set out a 25-year plan,

“to leave the natural environment in a better state than we found it.”

Yet we are debating a clause through which the Government hope to avoid stronger tax incentives for company employees to use low emission vehicles. Does the Minister not see the contradiction between what the clause attempts to do and the Prime Minister’s speech?

We know that taxation can operate as an effective tool for behavioural change, and it is clear that the Government agree with that. Only today, we have debated measures to increase taxation on smoking in the hope of driving cessation. We have also debated the behavioural effects of air passenger taxation on the use of air travel, and the taxation of illegal landfill sites to reduce the prevalence of disposal, so behavioural change is a theme here. Why do the Government see fit to use taxation to reduce some harmful behaviours but not this one, despite the serious public health and environmental effects of vehicle emissions?

Turning to amendment 61, we are reasonably asking the Government to review this decision, to look again at the appropriateness of the NEDC procedure for measuring emissions when compared with the new WLPT regime that the EU developed in the light of the recent emissions scandals. Our suggested review would look at several of the effects of the provisions, including the revenue effects of sticking with the NEDC testing procedure rather than, say, taking up the WLPT regime.

As I have described, it is also important to review the impact of the measure on our overall ambitions for the environment. We have therefore included a provision in our amendment to ensure that the impact of the decision is measured against our progress towards the UK’s commitment to reducing carbon dioxide emissions—we all accept that they cause much harm to public health—in our environment.

If the Government do not at least pay attention to what we are saying, their strategy will be confused. On one hand, the Prime Minister is committed to protecting the environment; on the other, the Chancellor is giving tax breaks to higher emission vehicles. It just does not make sense. Our amendment will require the Government to come clean about the evidence on the matter and look again at their decision. I am sure that many Committee members will think on what I have said as they reach their decision.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

Clause 48 confirms that for vehicle excise duty and company car tax purposes, the data for a car’s CO2 emissions will continue to be based on the new European driving cycle, or NEDC. As the hon. Gentleman says, NEDC, which is the current testing methodology for producing definitive car emissions values, is being replaced by a new lab test, known as the worldwide harmonised light vehicles test procedure, or WLTP, which is designed to be more representative of normal driving behaviour. For example, it contains more accelerating/decelerating and includes variable-speed driving. At the autumn Budget, it was announced that the Government will transition the tax system to using these improved readings from April 2020. The announcement was made now to give notice to drivers and the industry.

The Government will discuss with the industry next year whether the current CO2 band thresholds in VED and CCT are appropriate. In the interim, this clause clarifies that vehicle taxes will continue to use NEDC values until April 2020. The hon. Member for Bootle asked why we could not use the real-world driving emissions test in the interim. It is used as a complement to lab tests, to check whether cars produce similar emission values on the road as in the laboratory. We could not use the RDE as the primary basis for saving tax bands, because that is not how these tests work; they would not allow us to compare two cars on a like-for-like basis. The changes made by the clause will ensure that drivers’ tax rates are unaffected for vehicle excise duty, company car tax and fuel benefit charges.

Let me turn to amendment 61, which proposes that the Chancellor review the appropriateness of the NEDC regime prior to the clause commencing, and the effects of the change to the WLTP on the Government’s targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and on revenue.

I appreciate that Opposition Members want to ensure that the Government continually review the appropriateness of their policies for reducing carbon emissions. However, delaying the commencement of the clause to review the appropriateness of NEDC would be inappropriate, as it would mean that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and HMRC would not have clarity about which emissions figures they should use to set tax rates for vehicles. For clarity, I reiterate that NEDC is the established methodology for calculating CO2 values.

Clause 48 is designed to clarify the law. Since September, manufacturers seeking type approvals for new cars have been required to show two different CO2 readings for their vehicles—one produced under the new WLTP test and another consistent with the current NEDC test. We cannot use both numbers for tax purposes. Therefore, to avoid confusion, the clause makes it clear that the DVLA and HMRC will continue to assign tax bands using the current NEDC procedure.

The Government will transition the tax system to the new WLTP test from April 2020. That transition period gives the Government time to consider, in consultation with industry, what the effects of the new system will be and whether the band thresholds remain appropriate in the context of recorded WLTP results. We are actively discussing that topic with industry, and we will announce our decisions at the Budget in the usual way. On that basis, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary, and I ask the hon. Member for Bootle to withdraw it.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

Again, I appreciate what the Minister has said about keeping this under review, and about the 2020 date. We will keep looking closely at this issue, but on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

I am conscious of the television monitor, as there may be a Division in the Chamber at any time. When it is called, we will suspend for 15 minutes if there is one vote, and for an additional 10 minutes for each vote thereafter.

New Clause 1

Review of retrospective VAT refunds for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the Scottish Police Authority

‘(1) Within one month of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall commission a review of the potential consequences of allowing the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the Scottish Police Authority to claim VAT refunds under section 33 of VATA 1994 retrospective to the date of their establishment.

(2) The review shall consider—

(a) the administrative consequences of allowing retrospective claims, and

(b) the impact on revenue of allowing retrospective claims.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay the report of this review before the House of Commons within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.’—(Kirsty Blackman.)

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to commission a review into what the potential consequences of allowing the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service and the Scottish Police Authority to make retrospective claims for VAT refunds would be.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

Division 10

16 January 2018

The Committee divided:

Ayes: 9
Noes: 10

Question accordingly negatived.

View Details

New Clause 4

Review of the impact of increasing Research and Development Expenditure Credit

‘(1) Within one month of Royal Assent to this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall commission a review of the impact of increasing the Research and Development Expenditure Credit from 11% to 12%.

(2) The review shall consider—

(a) the effect of the 1% increase on companies’ research and development spending in the UK, and

(b) what effect the increase in Research and Development Expenditure Credit will have on changes to companies’ research and development spending in the UK as a result of leaving the EU.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall lay the report of this review before the House of Commons within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.’—(Kirsty Blackman.)

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to commission a review of the effect of the increase in Research and Development Expenditure Credit from 11% to 12% on companies’ research and development spending and what effect the increase will have on any changes to companies’ R&D spending as a result of the UK leaving the EU.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

Division 11

16 January 2018

The Committee divided:

Ayes: 9
Noes: 10

Question accordingly negatived.

View Details

New Clause 8

EIS, SEIS, SI and VCT reliefs: review of operation

‘(1) Within twelve months after the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the operation of the reliefs established under Parts 5, 5A, 5B and 6 of ITA 2007.

(2) The review under this section must consider—

(a)the revenue effects of the reliefs and changes made to those reliefs since the passing of the Finance Act 2012,

(b) the employment effects of the reliefs and those changes,

(c) other economic effects of the reliefs and those changes, and

(d) the extent to which trusts or other entities have been created to secure benefits from the reliefs and those changes without providing wider employment or economic benefits.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons the report of the review under this section as soon as practicable after its completion.”—(Peter Dowd.)

This new clause provides for a review of the operation of the enterprise investment scheme, the seed enterprise investment scheme, income tax relief for social investments and venture capital trusts income tax relief.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

Division 12

16 January 2018

The Committee divided:

Ayes: 9
Noes: 10

Question accordingly negatived.

View Details

New Clause 9

Review of change to level of research and development expenditure credit

‘(1) No later than 31 March 2019, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects of the change to the level of research and development expenditure made by section 19(1).

(2) The review under this section must consider—

(a) the revenue effects of the change, and

(b) the effects on levels of research and development expenditure.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons the report of the review under this section as soon as practicable after its completion.”—(Peter Dowd.)

This new clause provides for a review of the change to the level of research and development expenditure credit.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

Division 13

16 January 2018

The Committee divided:

Ayes: 9
Noes: 10

Question accordingly negatived.

View Details

New Clause 11

Review of financial impact of postponement of charge on share exchange in overseas transferee company

‘(1) Within twelve months after the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the financial impact of the changes made by section 27 of this Act to section 140 TCGA.

(2) The review under this section must consider—

(a) the revenue effects of the change made, and

(b) the extent to which the change has supported UK companies to conduct international business.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons the report of the review under this section as soon as practicable after its completion.”—(Peter Dowd.)

This new clause provides for a review of the revenue impact and the impact on business of the change to TCGA to prevent a postponed chargeable gain from becoming chargeable following further restructuring of a UK Company’s overseas business.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

Division 14

16 January 2018

The Committee divided:

Ayes: 9
Noes: 10

Question accordingly negatived.

View Details

New Clause 12

First Year Tax Credits: Review of effectiveness

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must commission a review of the effectiveness of First Year Tax Credits.

(2) The review under this section must consider—

(a) the effectiveness of First Year Tax Credits on—

(i) encouraging investment in efficient plant and machinery,

(ii) reducing the consumption of energy by business,

(iii) aiding the UK’s carbon reduction obligations, and

(b) the impact on revenue of the tax credits.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons the report of the review under this section within twelve months of the passing of this Act.”—(Peter Dowd.)

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to commission and lay before the House of Commons a report into the effectiveness of First Year Tax Credits.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

Division 15

16 January 2018

The Committee divided:

Ayes: 9
Noes: 10

Question accordingly negatived.

View Details

New Clause 13

Review of effectiveness of limit to double taxation relief

“(1) No later than 31 March 2019, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects of the limit to double taxation relief made by section 30.

(2) The review under this section must consider—

(a) the effects of the change on annual revenue, and—

(b) the size and type of companies benefiting from the relief and the impact of the changes on them.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons the report of the review under this section as soon as practicable after its completion.”—(Peter Dowd.)

This new clause provides for a review of the new limit for double taxation relief available to companies for foreign tax paid on income of a foreign permanent establishment.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

Division 16

16 January 2018

The Committee divided:

Ayes: 9
Noes: 10

Question accordingly negatived.

View Details

New Clause 14

Fixed rate deduction for expenditure on vehicles: review of change to eligibility

‘(1) Within twelve months after the passing of this Act, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effects of the amendments made by section 36 allowing unincorporated property businesses to use flat rates for mileage when calculating allowable deductions for vehicle expenditure for income tax.

(2) The review under this section must consider—

(a) the revenue effects of the change made, and

(b) the effect of the change on rates of car usage in unincorporated property businesses.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons the report of the review under this section as soon as practicable after its completion.’—(Peter Dowd.)

This new clause provides for a review into the effects on revenue and on car use of allowing unincorporated property businesses to use flat rates, commonly referred to as mileage rates, when calculating allowed deductions for income tax.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

Division 17

16 January 2018

The Committee divided:

Ayes: 9
Noes: 10

Question accordingly negatived.

View Details

Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.

On resuming—

New Clause 15

Landfill Tax disposals: review of changes to disposals within charge

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must commission a review of the changes to disposals for which Landfill Tax is chargeable within three months of the passing of this Act.

(2) The review under this section must consider—

(a) the effect on revenue of the changes,

(b) the impact on the volume of disposals at—

(i) sites with an environmental disposal permit, and

(ii) sites without an environmental disposal permit, and

(c) the impact of the changes on the prevalence of illegal disposal sites.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons the report of the review under this section within twelve months of the passing of this Act.’—(Peter Dowd.)

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to commission and lay before the House of Commons a report into the effects of the changes to disposals for which Landfill Tax is chargeable on tax revenue and on the volume of disposals and the prevalence of illegal landfill sites.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

Division 18

16 January 2018

The Committee divided:

Ayes: 7
Noes: 10

Question accordingly negatived.

View Details

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

As is traditional on such occasions, I will say a few words about the Committee. I thank everybody who has participated in what has been a full and robust debate at every stage. I particularly thank the Opposition Front Benchers for their contributions and the good humour and levity that has been on display at various points in our proceedings.

I thank the hon. Member for Bootle for his frequent biblical and literary allusions, his classical quotations—a few of which I actually understood, but they were impressive none the less. We concede on this side that there were no Marxist mumblings, for which we were very grateful. At one point, he compared the Labour party to John the Baptist, but then accepted that that did not end very well. We were grateful for his contributions.

I thank the hon. Member for Oxford East for her forensic examination of all issues. It is agreed by popular acclaim, and by Members on both sides of the Committee, that that was impressive to say the least. When serving with her on a particularly memorable Statutory Instrument Committee, I was horrified to discover that she had digested in microscopic detail not only the treaty that we were discussing, but its forerunner as well, and she was able to draw on that experience in our exchanges.

I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, who is not in her place, for her thoughtful contributions and the gentle but firm and persistent way in which she pursued the points that mattered to her.

It is fair to say that we have spent much time together—especially today, what with Treasury questions and the Committee. We have statutory instruments to look forward to, and we will also be engaged in considering the customs Bill. I hope that we do not forget sharing these golden moments. When we retire and Parliament disappears into the dim distance, perhaps we will have some kind of revival band and go out on the road to share our highlights of these occasions with the general public, like a band of ancient rockers who just keep going. Of course, the highlight of all highlights will be the story about the dead dog and the bicycle, which will never fade from our memories.

More seriously, Mr Owen, I thank you and Sir Roger very much for having chaired the Committee with such good humour, patience and impartiality; of course, we take that for granted. I thank the Whips as well. Having served as a Whip, I know how hard they work. They do not often receive much glory, but we are grateful to them for having kept things running so smoothly that the Committee is finishing early.

I thank Back Benchers on both sides of the room for their contributions—some were very good contributions, and there was a wealth of contributions from Members on our side of the Committee—which were gratefully received. I thank the Committee Clerks, Hansard and the Doorkeepers for their good service. I also thank all those who provided evidence to the Committee earlier on.

Almost last but certainly not least, I thank my officials at HMRC and at the Treasury: Dom Curran, Rachel Crade, Harry Pearse, George Houghton and Hugo Popplewell from my private office, all of whom have served and looked after me with great efforts, and to great effect. Finally, I thank parliamentary counsel, with whom I have struggled on this third Finance Bill of the last 12 months. Until we meet again, Mr Owen, thank you very much.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

I would like to mirror everything that the Minister has said. It is not goodbye but au revoir, as far as I can gather. I thank you, Mr Owen, all Members who have participated, the Minister for his assiduous answers to questions—some of which I never asked—and all my colleagues. I also want to thank my staff and my colleagues’ staff, who have worked hard behind the scenes, while we have taken the credit.

The edit just sent has not been saved. The following error was returned:
This content has already been edited and is awaiting review.

May I echo what both Front Benchers have said? I thank the House staff and the Clerks for the support that they have given us throughout proceedings on the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

Committee rose.

Written evidence reported to the House

FB27 This person wishes to remain anonymous

FB28 This person wishes to remain anonymous