Finance Bill

Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2020.

Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)

Good morning, everyone. As you are aware, social distancing guidelines are in place, so I remind all Members to sit only in marked seats. Tea and coffee are not permitted in Committee Rooms. Will all Members please ensure that mobile phones are turned off and switched to silent mode during Committee meetings? The Hansard reporters will be grateful if Members email any electronic copies of their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.

We now continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill.

Excluded property etc

Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 73 stand part. I call the Minister, Kemi Badenoch. [Interruption.] Sorry—Jesse Norman.

Jesse Norman (Conservative, Hereford and South Herefordshire)

Thank you, Mr Rosindell. My hon. Friend and I are sharing the duties on the Front Bench today, and it is I who rises to speak to clauses 72 and 73. The clauses make changes to ensure that additions of assets made by UK domiciled or deemed-domiciled individuals to trusts made when they were non-domiciled cannot be treated as excluded property. As that explanation indicates, it is a somewhat technical measure, which means that such additions are within the scope of inheritance tax.

The clauses have been introduced following a decision by the Court of Appeal. To give some background, the inheritance tax treatment of trusts depends on the domicile status of the person setting up the trust when it was made, known as the settlor, and the location of the assets. If the settlor is UK domiciled, inheritance tax is chargeable on their worldwide assets. By contrast, non-domiciled individuals do not pay inheritance tax on assets in trusts situated outside the UK.

The long-established position of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has been that a settlement is made when a trust is created, and that a settlement is also made when assets are added to that trust. That means that assets would be within the scope of inheritance tax if they were added to a trust by an individual who is currently UK domiciled, even if the trust was set up when the same individual was non-UK domiciled. The Court of Appeal decision created uncertainty by ruling that a settlement was made only when assets were first added to the trust. That ruling meant that the domicile of the settlor for later additions to the trust would not matter. In turn, all subsequent settlements of assets into the trust would not be liable for inheritance tax in the UK. The measure was announced in the autumn Budget 2018, and stakeholders have had nearly two years’ notice of the change.

In July 2019, the draft legislation was published, which provided an opportunity to give feedback to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. HMRC received feedback from a range of bodies including the Chartered Institute of Taxation, the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the Tax Faculty and PricewaterhouseCoopers by the deadline for responses. HMRC then made a number of amendments based on the feedback provided, and stakeholders have since provided further feedback regarding the legislation.

Together, the measures will confirm that additions of non-UK assets by UK domiciled or deemed-domiciled individuals to trusts are chargeable for inheritance tax, even when the trust was originally set up while that individual was non-domiciled. The measures will also ensure that transfers between trusts made by a UK-domiciled individual are chargeable for inheritance tax. That will affect UK-domiciled or deemed-domiciled individuals who created an offshore trust when they were previously non-UK domiciled and have subsequently made additions of assets to that trust.

Although the measure will apply only to a small number of individuals, the tax saving for them could have been significant, and there have been claims for tax repayments as a result of the case. The clauses will ensure that the legislation is applied as intended and all tax is collected as expected. The changes introduced by the clauses will add clarity and remove any doubt from the legislation by confirming HMRC’s published and widely accepted views. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

Bridget Phillipson (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South)

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Mr Rosindell. We regard the measure as a welcome imposition to provide for a fairer tax system. HMRC figures indicate that the number of individuals who live in the UK but pay no tax on their offshore income has fallen, with the number of UK-based individuals with non-domiciled tax status falling by 13% on the previous year. HMRC believes that that is explained by individuals switching to domiciled status and other individuals leaving the UK tax system. Thus the clauses reflect that particular change. However, there are some issues reported by stakeholders.

Responding to clauses 72 and 73, the Chartered Institute of Taxation states that among its members transfers between trusts are most commonly undertaken for family or related reasons, and without any intention to avoid inheritance tax or to circumvent the excluded property rules. It argues that the main thrust of the legislation should be to limit additions by the settlor after they become deemed or actually UK domiciled.

The institute expresses concern about some scenarios in which property could inadvertently be brought into the scope of inheritance tax because a change is made to a trust, not an addition of assets, that could be treated as a resettlement, or trustees make a transfer between two settlements, both set up when the settlor was non-domiciled. In neither case is inheritance tax avoidance being attempted. There are some situations where trustees, not the settlor, are involved in transferring between two settlements, both set up when the settler is foreign domiciled, or when the second is set up by the trustees of the first. We believe that there should be no loss of excluded property status because of the changing status of the settlor. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s assessment of those concerns.

Secondly, both the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and the London Society of Chartered Accountants were critical of the potential for retrospection. The former argued that if clause 72 is

“to be treated as always having been in force, this will result in unexpected IHT charges arising as a result of past events.”

The institute says:

“Given that the clause is not countering avoidance but is changing long-standing rules that are familiar to trustees and are clearly stated in the existing law…new legislation on this point should not affect events that happened earlier than the measure is enacted, ie Royal Assent.”

Similarly, the London Society of Chartered Accountants believes that this

“clause changes the IHT status of trusts to which assets are added. This change will have effect from the time that the trust was set up, so is retrospective. However, as the clause is not an anti-avoidance measure but is just a change to the law, retrospection is not appropriate and the clause therefore does not follow Parliamentary convention.”

I understand that these comments presume that the individuals in question do not seek to avoid tax when transferring assets between trusts, but I would be grateful if the Minister responded to these concerns.

Last, I heard the Minister’s comments, but the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has raised the lack of a consultation period or of any follow-up, despite being led to believe that that would happen after a meeting with HMRC in November 2018. It reported that

“trustees of offshore trusts are unlikely to have considered these changes in the necessary detail”

and had concerns that there would be

“insufficient time for trustees to take advice to help them understand the full implications and…whether they want to take any action to unwind structures.”

In working with the intention of the measures the Government have introduced, I would be grateful if the Minister responded to those concerns and addressed the lack of a consultation period.

Jesse Norman (Conservative, Hereford and South Herefordshire)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her questions and for her support on this technical but important measure.

The hon. Lady asks about unanticipated negative effects. I am happy to put on the record that HMRC has given reassurance that it will adopt a cautious approach if there is a case in which a taxpayer may accidently taint a trust that contains a mixture of excluded and non-excluded property. Hopefully, that will address many of the concerns about unexpected consequences that she touched on.

The hon. Lady asks whether this measure is retrospective. As she will be aware, we do not believe that it is retrospective. The key point is that HMRC’s application of the legislation, and therefore the legal position, was widely accepted in practice before the Court of Appeal decision put that position in doubt. The effect of it is going to be that individuals have been liable to the tax owed in the spirit of the legislation. Formally, clause 72 is not retrospective because it does not create any new changes pre-Royal Assent, but we recognise the concern that is raised. It is true that in some cases there may be what I would describe retroactable, and not retrospective, effects. That is precisely because HMRC and the Government are seeking to restore what might be referred to as the position as it had always been understood previously. That is the intended effect of the legislation.

The hon. Lady asks whether there should have been more consultation. As I outlined in my speech, the Government have had this in the public domain for a considerable period and discussed it, with plenty of occasion for people to conform their tax affairs to what is, after all, only a reaffirmation of existing tax law through legislation. There is also the counterpart problem, which the hon. Lady will understand: if the clause is not introduced now, it may allow opportunities for individuals to avoid paying inheritance tax on assets they put into trust or on properties transferred between trusts. I am sure she would not wish to abet or support those opportunities and that she would wish, overall, to join us in protecting revenue and providing certainty to taxpayers.

Relief for payments to victims of persecution during Second World War era

Jesse Norman (Conservative, Hereford and South Herefordshire)

This is a small measure, but a very important one. The clause exempts compensation payments received under the Kindertransport fund from an inheritance tax liability. In late 2018, the German Government agreed to provide compensation payments for child survivors of the Kindertransport. As you will know, Mr Rosindell, the Kindertransport was an organised rescue effort for Jewish children, who were transported unaccompanied from Germany to escape persecution from the Nazi regime. I must say, it is one of the most shining examples of effective humanitarian action in Germany’s history—and in our history—in a very difficult time.

The Kindertransport fund, launched in January 2019, awarding one-off payments of €2,500 to survivors is subject to specified criteria as set out by the German Government. The measure will ensure that Kindertransport payments are not subject to inheritance tax. Changes made by clause 74 will be backdated to take effect so that no inheritance tax is paid on payments from the scheme from its opening date on 1 January 2019.

The clause provides reassurance to the original survivors of the Kindertransport that any payment made in connection with or under this compensation scheme will not be subject to IHT. While no amount of money could ever remove the suffering those children and their families experienced, the Government remain committed to supporting survivors of Nazi persecution. I trust that all agree that it is fundamental that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Bridget Phillipson (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South)

The Opposition welcome the provision. As the Minister says, it is a very important measure. Exempting from inheritance tax compensation payments made to the survivors of the Kindertransport is a just measure for those who had to face the devastating experience of being torn from their families as children in order to escape persecution. The House of Commons Library states that around 100,000 children were brought to the UK under the Kindertransport scheme, but of course many of those survivors have since passed away. It is only right that in the spirit of the Kindertransport fund all survivors receive their compensation payment in its fullest form and that that remains the case if the compensation is inherited.

According to the claims conference, to be eligible for payment survivors have to have been under 21 when the Kindertransport took place, between November 1938 and September 1939. However, the UK set an age limit of 17 for those transported. The oldest would therefore be born around 1921 or 1922, suggesting that they would be nearly 100 if they were alive today. The average age of the children who were transported was nine, so many would be in their mid-nineties today. Given those figures, we know that many people claiming compensation from the compensation fund will be survivors’ inheritors, so it is welcome that the payment is not subject to inheritance tax. However, I gently urge the Government to consider the issues that child refugees face today, and I urge Ministers to show the same level of commitment and dedication today that our country demonstrated in the past.

The Kindertransport survivor and incredible campaigner Lord Dubs worked tirelessly to protect child refugees following our withdrawal from the European Union, but the Government’s amendment of clause 37 watered down the UK’s commitment to protect unaccompanied child refugees in Europe who seek to reunite with their families in the UK. I hope that the Government will review their approach to child refugees and take seriously their commitment to protect child refugees fleeing violence and persecution in our present, just as they have taken seriously compensating child refugees of the past. Meaningful dedication to supporting child refugees requires both.

Jesse Norman (Conservative, Hereford and South Herefordshire)

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. She spoke very well about the Kindertransport scheme. As the Committee knows, the Government stand by our position on child refugees, and this country has a proud record in that area.

Stamp duty: transfers of unlisted securities and connected persons

Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 76 stand part.

Jesse Norman (Conservative, Hereford and South Herefordshire)

In the spirit of proper scrutiny of legislation, we should chew carefully on clauses 75 and 76. They are quite technical clauses, which address the use of contrived arrangements involving the transfer of unlisted securities to connected companies for an artificially low consideration in order to minimise stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax liability on company reorganisations.

In the Finance Act 2019, the Government introduced a targeted market value rule to prevent the artificial reduction of the stamp tax due when listed shares are transferred to a connected company. That was introduced with immediate effect to prevent forestalling. The Government consulted on extending the rule to unlisted shares, to ensure that we fully understood the potential effect of the change on small businesses. That is why draft legislation is narrowly targeted only at companies that enter into contrived arrangements that are used to minimise stamp tax on reorganisations.

The Finance Bill 2020 therefore extends the market value rule to the transfer of unlisted shares to connected companies. This form of avoidance seeks to exploit the way stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax are currently charged: on the payment given as consideration, rather than on the value of what is received. Some taxpayers have been using contrived arrangements that reduce the value of the consideration paid when they transfer unlisted shares to a company with which they are connected as part of a company reorganisation.

The changes made by clauses 75 and 76 will mean that when unlisted shares are transferred to a company and the person transferring the shares is connected with the company, the tax charge is based on the value of the consideration for the transfer or the market value of the shares transferred, whichever is higher. The new rule will apply only when there is an issue with shares by way of consideration, narrowly targeting the measures to the circumstances where contrived arrangements are used to minimise the share of the tax on the transfer of unlisted shares. The measures will have effect for stamp duty in relation to instruments executed on or after Royal Assent of this Bill, and for stamp duty reserve tax in relation to agreements to transfer made on or after Royal Assent.

Clauses 75 and 76 prevent the artificial reduction of the stamp tax due on share acquisitions when unlisted shares are transferred to connected companies. It is expected to raise £25 million over the scorecard, and I commend the clauses to the Committee.

Bridget Phillipson (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South)

The Opposition welcome the measures implemented by these clauses to minimise the scope of continuing avoidance of stamp duties by extending the stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax market value rule to the transfer of unlisted securities to connected companies. However, I raise a point regarding the impact of the clauses.

HMRC’s impact assessment of the policy notes that there will be a negligible impact on 250 to 350 businesses in the first year, disproportionately affecting small and microbusinesses. It estimates that the arrangements are most likely to affect private companies with a small number of stakeholders, such as owner-manager businesses, with an average value of £2.5 million. These may include family businesses, many of which we understand to be struggling in the face of the current pandemic. What assessment has the Minister made of this, and who is really the intended target of these clauses?

The Chartered Institute of Taxation expressed concern that unintended consequences could arise from clause 76 due to significant additional costs that are disproportionate to the tax at stake in many cases. It goes on to say that this

“may in some situations prevent commercially advantageous transactions, with no avoidance motive, from going ahead. The…vague description of policy rationale and the contrived arrangements being targeted has prevented stakeholders from assisting in designing a targeted rule so as to reduce the unintended consequences.”

Similarly, legal firm Cleary Gottlieb notes that

“the new rule is not limited to cases of stamp duty or SDRT avoidance, and it should not be assumed that transactions driven entirely by commercial considerations will fall outside its scope.”

I will be grateful if the Minister explains how the Government will seek to minimise unintended consequences of this measure being the targeting of businesses that are not seeking to avoid stamp duties.

Respondents to the consultation suggested that it would be preferable to introduce a targeted anti-avoidance rule into the legislation, or to extend the general anti-abuse rule or the disclosure of tax avoidance scheme provisions. What consideration have the Government given to inserting a targeted anti-avoidance rule into the legislation?

Last, the Chartered Institute of Taxation points out that, in relation to clause 77, there are a number of circumstances in which a shareholding of 25%—required for this exception to section 77A of the Finance Act 1986 to apply—will be an excessive hurdle, reasoning that it is not uncommon for a company to be owned equally by five or six entrepreneurs or a family group. It suggests that a requirement that the relevant shareholding is at least 10% would be more appropriate to cover a wide range of commercial scenarios. I will grateful if the Minister will address those concerns.

Jesse Norman (Conservative, Hereford and South Herefordshire)

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for the questions she raises. Let me take them in order.

On whether these measures will affect most small businesses or organisations, as the hon. Lady highlights, a relatively small number of organisations will be affected. The measures were subject to consultation, and interestingly the respondents were satisfied that there would be little impact on commercial activity as the measures were suitably targeted, and expressed some pleasure that the concerns they raised during the policy consultation about the impact of a more wide-ranging measure had been heard. This is, of itself, a tightly focused measure. It falls—where it falls—on a relatively small number of organisations, as I said.

However, it is important to pick out the logic of what I think the hon. Lady is saying. We all recognise the importance of combating the pandemic. She will be aware that the Government have spent many tens of billions of pounds on supporting businesses, families and jobs during this process. This measure is about something else: avoid a form of tax avoidance, or rather heading off a form of tax avoidance; curbing and preventing it. I do not think people’s concerns about the pandemic should be allowed to obtrude on that.

The hon. Lady asked a question about unintended effects. Our analysis is that precisely because of the targeting that was noted during the consultation phase, unexpected effects, while they can never be ruled out, should be limited and minimal. It is also important to say that there will be a modest additional administrative burden that will decline over time as people become accustomed to the new rules.

The hon. Lady asked whether it would be better to address this with a more targeted anti-avoidance rule, but this is quite a targeted anti-avoidance rule. It picks out particular forms and is restricted to company reorganisations of a certain kind, and it builds on the existing approach for listed shares. I therefore think that it addresses her concerns.

Stamp duty: acquisition of target company’s share capital

Jesse Norman (Conservative, Hereford and South Herefordshire)

Clause 77 prevents a double stamp duty charge from arising on some company reorganisations, and follows on from clauses 75 and 76. During the consultation on extending the market value rule to unlisted securities, it was put to the Government that a double charge could arise on a type of company reorganisation known as a capital reduction partition demerger. We are very heavily in the long grass of tax intricacy. Such a demerger is where shares in a company are cancelled and shareholders are compensated with shares in a new company, rather than with cash. A corporate group may pursue this strategy where, for commercial reasons, it wants to split a group and ensure that the companies in that group are held separately by the original shareholders.

Currently, taxpayers who follow the rules can incur two stamp duty charges on such demergers, while other taxpayers use contrived arrangements to avoid paying any stamp duty on the same reorganisation. This clause, together with clause 75, ensures that one charge arises on most capital reduction partition demergers by more tightly targeting existing anti-avoidance provisions related to company reorganisations.

Stamp duty is a transaction tax. When a company is split using a demerger arrangement, there are a number of steps, two of which are potentially subject to stamp duty unless a relief applies. Usually relief applies on one step only, so that there is just one charge on the overall transaction. In some demergers, known as capital reduction partition demergers, relief is unavailable on both steps due to anti-avoidance provisions. Clause 77 will prevent a stamp duty double charge from arising, so that only one charge will arise on most capital reduction partition demergers. It does this by better targeting the existing anti-avoidance provisions. The measure applies to stamp duty instruments that are executed on or after Royal Assent.

Clause 77 works together with clause 75 to ensure that one charge will apply on most capital reduction partition demergers. This increases fairness and consistency. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

Bridget Phillipson (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South)

I raised these points in an earlier debate, but I will do so again so that the Minister can respond.

On clause 77, the Chartered Institute of Taxation points out that there are a number of circumstances in which a shareholding of 25%, which is required for the exception to section 77A of the Financial Act 1986 to apply, will be an excessive hurdle. Its reasoning is that it is not uncommon for a company to be owned equally by five or six entrepreneurs or a family group. It suggests that a requirement that the relevant shareholding be at least 10% would be more appropriate to cover a wide range of commercial scenarios. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s response on that issue.

Jesse Norman (Conservative, Hereford and South Herefordshire)

The hon. Lady raises a very specific circumstance. It would be appropriate for me to write to her about the specifics of the decision about percentages, rather than try to go through the argument here.

The discussion has already been had between HMRC and stakeholders, and therefore it has to some extent already been addressed through the consultation process, but I am happy to revisit the issue.

Call-off stock arrangements

Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 13—Call-off stock arrangements: sectoral review of impact—

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must make an assessment of the impact of section 78 on the sectors listed in (2) below and lay a report of that assessment before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.

(2) The sectors to be assessed under (1) are—

(a) leisure,

(b) retail,

(c) hospitality,

(d) tourism,

(e) financial services,

(f) business services,

(g) health/life/medical services,

(h) haulage/logistics,

(i) aviation,

(j) transport,

(k) professional sport,

(l) oil and gas,

(m) universities, and

(n) fairs.”

This new clause would require the Government to report on the effect of Clause 78 on a number of business sectors.—(Alison Thewliss.)

Jesse Norman (Conservative, Hereford and South Herefordshire)

Clause 78 simplifies the rules for accounting for VAT on goods moving from the UK to member states of the EU or vice versa in advance of goods being “called off”, as it is known, for delivery. This is known as “call-off stock”. These changes represent a simplification for businesses that use call-off stock arrangements and provide common rules across the EU. They apply to goods removed from or to the UK from 1 January 2020, and will apply for the remainder of the UK’s transition period with the EU. We expect the changes to have a negligible effect on businesses that adopt them.

The clause transcribes EU call-off stock law—new article 17A to the principal VAT directive—into UK legislation. It sets out the conditions for the rules to apply and provides sellers with statutory obligations to adhere to strict record keeping and reporting requirements. These changes are an administrative easement; the primary benefit is to UK businesses that will no longer have to register and account for VAT in the customer’s country, and vice versa. However, the quid pro quo is additional reporting requirements as well as EU regulations, which have direct effect, that set out new record keeping requirements, as I have indicated.

There is no obligation on a business to restructure transactions so as to meet the conditions and fall within the new rules. We expect that they would use the simplification only because they might derive a benefit for their business. Businesses that do not meet the conditions and so do not fall within the new rules should continue with the current VAT accounting mechanisms for EU cross-border transactions.

The Government published the draft legislation and guidance on the operation of the rules in December. The legislation was laid before the House in the Finance Bill at Budget earlier this year. A resolution under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968 means that the legislation currently has effect.

Call-off stock are goods that are bulk-shipped by a supplier across a border to a warehouse from where they will be supplied, or called off, as the customer requires. Different EU member states previously had different VAT accounting rules for call-off stock. Some required the seller of the goods to register and account for VAT in the country where the goods were to be called off. The UK avoided the need for the overseas supplier to register for VAT here. We allowed the customer to account for the VAT when the goods first arrived and in advance of being called off. The measure implements the changes adopted by ECOFIN on 4 December 2018, which were designed to simplify the rules and make them more consistent within the single market.

In normal circumstances the new rules, like the existing UK rules, do not require the seller to register and account for VAT in the country where the goods are called off. The new rules delay accounting for VAT until the goods are called off. To avoid VAT fraud, suppliers are required to report the initial movement of the goods to their tax authority, and both the supplier and the customer are required to keep additional records of the stock. When the goods are called off, normal VAT accounting and reporting procedures will apply and the customer will account for the acquisition of VAT. The Government had some concerns over the potential burden on business of keeping the new records required under the new rules and pushed for the right of business to continue using the existing rules if they so wished. A business is not required to arrange its affairs such that the new rules must be used. A supplier and their customer can agree to continue to use the existing UK rules for goods called off in the UK.

HMRC has produced guidance reflecting the introduction of the changes, and the measure is expected to be revenue neutral. It constitutes a simplification for UK businesses. The measure updates UK law to take account of the approach in the EU. It simplifies the VAT rules for call-off stock transactions and avoids the requirement for the supplier to register in the destination state.

New clause 13 would require the Government to conduct a review on the impact of the new call-off stock rules on a variety of different sectors within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. The new legislation provides a simplification for businesses that choose to meet the conditions for it to apply. With that in mind, we expect it would have a negligible impact on businesses. I can inform the Committee that recent figures show that fewer than 200 UK businesses have reported that they are using the new rules, and we are not aware of any being in the sectors mentioned in the amendment. I therefore ask the Committee to reject the amendment and commend the clause to the Committee.

Alison Thewliss (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Central)

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Rosindell. I take what the Minister says about the measure affecting relatively few businesses at the moment, but as this develops, that might not remain the case. There is a certain irony in the EU providing mechanisms for simplifying and harmonising these rules and trading across the EU—people moving their goods around the place—when the UK stands to come out of the EU and lose some of those benefits for businesses in all our constituencies.

There is an irony as well that the Government have decided to adopt these new rules. I am sure the Brexiteers in the room are no less keen on being rule takers, but that seems to be what the Government are doing in this case. We want to see as much harmonisation and simplification for businesses, because that is to their benefit. That is why we think it is important to stay in the EU in the first place.

Figures from the Scottish Government suggest that Scottish GDP could be 1.1% lower after two years, on the current cumulative loss of economic activity from leaving the EU, and up to £3 billion over those two years, on top of the devastating effects of the coronavirus outbreak. There will be an impact without having a free trade deal or an extension, at least for Scotland’s agriculture, fisheries and manufacturing sectors.

We want to see a comprehensive assessment of how all the sectors listed in the amendment will be affected—leisure, retail, hospitality, tourism, financial services, business services, health, life and medical services, logistics, aviation, transport, professional sport, oil and gas, universities—because they could all be affected by this clause. It would be wise for the Government to look at the impact of what they are proposing. It is always wise for the Government to look at the impact of their proposals on anything, I suppose, and we encourage them to do that.

Because the measure is retrospective, will the Minister say what notifications have gone out to business that may be affected and what guidance has been given? He said that companies can opt to use these rules or not. How does that work, and how does the guidance ensure that people know what they have to carry out, whether they decide to use the rules or not? It sounds quite confusing from what the Minister said. Finally, because he did not make it clear, will he say what happens to these measures after the transition period?

Wes Streeting (Labour, Ilford North)

Let me begin by picking up on a point made by the Member for Glasgow Central about the provenance of clause 78. As we heard from the Financial Secretary, the clause transposes into UK law an EU directive that provides for simplified VAT treatment of call-off stock.

Jesse Norman (Conservative, Hereford and South Herefordshire)

I am grateful to hon. Members for their comments. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central regards it as an irony that the Government are bringing forward this rule. I would not describe it as an irony; it is a simplification for those companies that wish to use it, and it is optional. Some companies will prefer the current arrangements as more settled and simpler, while others may not—I do not think that there is anything more to it than that. So far, 200 companies have already taken it up; of course, we cannot say in advance how many may have chosen to do so by the end of the transition period, but it is a relatively small number of companies, as I have indicated.

Alison Thewliss (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Central)

Can the Financial Secretary tell us how many companies are using the previous rules?

Jesse Norman (Conservative, Hereford and South Herefordshire)

I certainly do not know the number of companies operating under the previous rules, but I would be happy to drop the hon. Lady a letter with any number that HMRC may have that can be publicly disclosed. The point is that there is a relatively small number of companies; they have seen this coming and it is an optional advantage for them. In reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Ilford North, it applies only during the transition period, which will end at the end of this year.

We will be leaving the transition period on 1 January, which is not only stated by Government but is commonly understood. That goes to the question of divergence, which was raised by the hon. Member for Ilford North. We are bound by EU law while we are in the transition period. The Government certainly do not have any interest in divergence for the sake of divergence; the Government have an interest in the ability to set our own law, including our own tax law, as we as a sovereign nation see fit. That might or might not involve divergence, but this measure will not apply after the transition period.

The hon. Member for Ilford North also raises an important question about whether there is enough time for business to accommodate rules. I cannot comment on behalf of other Departments, but it certainly is a concern that has been raised in relation to the creation of tax law. Wherever possible, the Government try to abide by rules that we introduced after 2010 in order to have a more effective tax process. As he knows, it involves several stages and periods of consultation. We are coming up to an L day for legislation to be considered for the 2020 Budget, for the autumn Budget—if there is one—and for a Finance Bill next year. There is an orderly process, but I take his point about the importance of ensuring that it is as orderly and well structured as possible.

Post-duty point dilution of wine or made-wine

Stephen Flynn (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South)

I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 79, page 67, line 25, at end insert—

‘(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expected effects on public health of the changes made to the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 by this Section and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within one year of the passing of this Act.”

This amendment would require the Government to review the impact of the proposed changes to alcohol liquor duties on public health.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. The amendment is quite simple and would require the Government to review the impact of alcohol duties on public health. It should come as no surprise, given that the SNP has long called for duty to reflect content, but we do not have the powers in Scotland to do that. Instead, we have to rely once again on the Westminster system in that regard. That is a real pity, because where we have powers in Scotland in relation to public health and alcohol, we have made great strides. For instance, we have seen the banning of irresponsible promotions and the lowering of the drink-drive limit. We ended multi-buy discounts, something that was certainly contentious at the time. As a young student, I was not overjoyed about the fact that I could not buy three crates of Tennent’s for £20. None the less, it was an important measure that no doubt changed the behaviour of many people, including myself at that time.

Of course, we have seen the overwhelming success of minimum unit pricing in Scotland. That was, again, an extremely contentious measure at the time, whereby we placed a 50p-per-unit charge on units of alcohol. The cumulative effect of all those measures has seen something that we all wanted to see in Scotland, where we have a difficult relationship with alcohol—one that was challenging to confirm but that we needed to confirm. We saw off-duty sales fall by 3.6% in the first year since minimum unit pricing was introduced. In England and Wales during the same period, off-duty sales increased by 3.2%. That is a very telling figure.

When I first came to Parliament, one of the very first debates that I took part in was in Westminster Hall. I cannot remember which hon. Member secured the debate, but it was about alcohol duty. I think the purpose of the debate was to galvanise hon. Members to stop the Government increasing alcohol duty and, hopefully, to reduce it. There was extreme passion in that Chamber and there were a lot of hon. Members present—more than are often seen debating any given matter in the main Chamber. There was a lot of passion about pints, but we cannot be passionate about pints without also having passion for public health and the consequences of the decisions being made. The stark reality is that the two are inextricably linked, and the UK Government need to be mindful of that fact. Supporting the amendment would be a good, positive first step on that journey to a more sensible approach that takes into account public health.

In that Westminster Hall debate, in which numerous Government Members spoke, not a single person mentioned public health, despite the consequences of alcohol in our communities. That is not good enough.

Alison Thewliss (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Central)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the minimum unit pricing introduced in Scotland had the effect of removing from our shelves some of the most harmful drinks, including the high-strength industrial ciders that cause so much harm to so many people in our communities?

Stephen Flynn (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South)

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We did not have to walk far to find a shop in Scotland that sold ciders. White Lightning is incredibly strong. Often, individuals would buy it early in the morning, and by the afternoon the remnants were across our city. We were able to stop that, and that was important because it was having an impact on every single person who lived and worked there. This amendment gives the Government the opportunity to make sensible strides in recognition of the fact that public health and alcohol are inextricably linked.

Wes Streeting (Labour, Ilford North)

I shall begin by addressing the SNP’s amendment 10. It is important to look carefully at the relationship between alcohol taxation and public health. We have seen in other areas of taxation, notably the sugar tax, the huge impact that decisions taken by the Treasury can have on public health and public health outcomes. It is long past time for us to look seriously and sensibly at whether more can be done to reduce the impact of alcohol and alcoholism on people’s lives and communities.

Turning to clause 79, I have had the opportunity to do a much deeper dive into some of the issues, not least because of the determined efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins). Anyone who has ever been lobbied by him will know that when it comes to standing up for his constituents and for businesses in his constituency, there is no more determined, stubborn and irrefutable representation than that which he provides. He has raised serious concerns about the impact of the clause on businesses in his constituency. I shall outline some of those concerns, in the hope that Ministers will consider their bearing on Government policy.

We understand perfectly what the Government are trying to achieve with clause 79. The clause amends the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979, to introduce sanctions for post duty point dilution of wine or made-wine, which, if carried out before the duty point, would have resulted in a higher amount of duty being payable. That change has, in effect, already come into force and we are legislating for it this morning. The change is perfectly understandable. It is designed to bring more revenue into the Treasury that would otherwise be, and is being, lost. I understand the Government’s position that post duty point dilution carries significant legal and revenue risk for the Exchequer.

The Wine and Spirit Trade Association is against the legislation, claiming it would put hundreds of jobs at risk and place more pressure on the industry. Recently, thanks to the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, I had the opportunity to speak to Global Brands, a business based in his constituency that makes VK and Hooch, among other products. We know that covid-19 is having a huge impact on the licensed trade industry and on alcohol sales in particular, affecting not only pubs but the producers of wines, spirits and other beverages. Global Brands is concerned that, because of the financial burden placed on its business by the clause, combined with the impact of covid-19, it expects to make 50% of its workforce redundant, putting 200 jobs at risk as a result of this change. If I can characterise our discussions in this way, it would be accurate to say that Global Brands accepts that this change is inevitable, and that the Treasury has a settled view on it, but it hopes that the Treasury might consider a 12-month delay in implementation—from April 2020 to April 2021—arguing that this would give it time to recover from the covid-19 shock, leaving it better able to absorb the change.

Global Brands makes other arguments that the Treasury may want to take into account. In particular, Global Brands sells what were commonly known as alcopops, a low alcohol by volume product—typically around 4% ABV. It is concerned that the impact of the change will be that, ironically, its low alcohol product would be taxed higher per unit of alcohol than much higher strength products, which flies in the face of the Government’s stated policy of discouraging high-strength alcohol and its impact on public health.

It is also worth highlighting that the Government have already announced their intention to conduct a wider review of alcohol taxation. I wonder whether it makes sense, from the point of view of business resilience and of giving companies such as Global Brands more time to cope with the covid-19 shock before absorbing this change, for the Treasury to consider this delay alongside the range of other issues that it will consider as part of its wider review of alcohol taxation. We might have been minded to table an amendment to probe the 12-month delay, but we were advised that such an amendment would not be in scope because the foundation resolution is clear about the date on which this change takes effect.

That is another reason why—I gently make this point again to Ministers—we feel strongly about the way in which the Treasury has restricted the scope of amendments and the debate by not introducing an amendment of the law resolution, as has been the case historically. As well as denying Opposition Members the opportunity to table broad, sweeping, political amendments to the Finance Bill, that also has practical implications. I impress on Ministers and the usual channels the need to reconsider that for future Finance Bills.

Finally, when my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield and I spoke to Global Brands just the other week, I was particularly impressed not just by the jobs and economic activity it provides in Chesterfield, but at the fact that its wider supply chain is virtually entirely British. Its ingredients, packaging and labelling are all derived from a British supply chain. I do wonder whether the Treasury has really thought through the timing of the change, the impact that it will have on businesses such as Global Brands, and where it might position such businesses in relation to their international competitors that are not providing jobs in this country and do not have a supply chain rooted here.

Given the unemployment statistics out today, we know that structural unemployment will become one of the biggest political issues and economic challenges in our country. Structural unemployment in Britain will become a feature of our life in a way that, frankly, it was not 10 years ago, in the wake of the financial crisis, and has not been for decades. The Government must do everything they can to protect jobs, which is why we have called today for them to come forward not just with fiscal measures in July, but a full-on, jobs-first Budget—because we are worried about the impact of covid-19 on unemployment.

The representations on clause 79 from Global Brands and from my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield remind us of the risk of the unintended consequences of Government policy. Given the impact on jobs and the supply chain and the fact that the Treasury is in any case preparing to undertake a review of alcohol taxation, I wonder whether the call for the Government to delay the measure by 12 months is not eminently reasonable—and whether they might come forward with their own change to the Bill on Report.

Kemi Badenoch (Conservative, Saffron Walden)

Clause 79 makes changes to alcohol duty legislation to introduce prohibitive sanctions for anyone who dilutes wine or made-wine once that product has passed a duty point. It will ensure fairness by providing equity of treatment across the drinks industry and will tackle future revenue risks for the Exchequer.

Post duty point dilution is a practice that enables wine and made-wine producers to reduce the excise duty that they pay by diluting the product after duty has been paid. Because the dilution increases the volume of wine and made-wine for sale, with no additional duty being paid, less duty is paid than would otherwise be due. UK legislation does not expressly prevent post duty point dilution for wine and made-wine, although it is prohibited for all other alcohol products. The practice gives certain wine or made-wine producers a tax advantage over those who produce other categories of alcohol, of which dilution is not permitted, and over others in their own sector who cannot make use of the practice.

Clause 79 will introduce new prohibitive sanctions for anyone who dilutes wine or made-wine once that product has passed a duty point on or after 1 April 2020. Introducing new sanctions to prevent the practice will maintain the principle that excise duty is calculated only on a finished product when it is released from production premises or on import. It will ensure fairness by providing equity of treatment across the drinks industry and will tackle future revenue risks for the Exchequer.

A review of the practice was launched at autumn Budget 2017, during which HMRC engaged extensively with industry and gathered a large amount of evidence to inform a decision. At Budget 2018, the Government announced the findings of the review and their intention to stop the practice being used for wine and made-wine, as is already the case for other types of alcohol. However, the Government also announced that that would not take effect until April 2020. That has given those businesses affected almost three years to prepare for the change, allowing them time to reformulate or diversify into the production of new lines.

Amendment 10 would require the Chancellor to review the public health effects of the post duty point dilution sanctions. When making changes to the alcohol duty system, the Government take into account a wide range of factors, including economic inequalities and health impacts. The new sanctions follow an extensive review by HMRC in 2017. Draft legislation was published in July 2019, alongside which a tax information and impact note was published on the gov.uk website, detailing the various factors that the Government have considered. The amendment is therefore unnecessary, as the Government have already published our assessment of the effect on public health. For the convenience of the Committee, I will reiterate that assessment. The Government expect that

“wine or made-wine may become slightly more expensive…there may be a positive health impact with less wine being consumed. However, this benefit may be offset if any increase in price leads to consumers switching to higher strength products.”

Alison Thewliss (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Central)

I am sure the Minister has seen the graph that sets pence per unit against alcohol by volume. To say that it looks as though it was drawn by a child with a crayon is being generous to children with crayons. Will she consider a wider review of the duty per unit of alcohol by product type, because at the moment it makes absolutely no sense?

Kemi Badenoch (Conservative, Saffron Walden)

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am not quite sure which chart she is referring to, and I do not accept her comments. We must remember that the purpose of the clause is primarily to close a tax loophole.

Wes Streeting (Labour, Ilford North)

I understand what the Minister says about closing a loophole and about the time that businesses have been given to prepare for the change, but does she not think that the impact of covid-19 has a bearing here? Given the representations that are being made about the impact of the double whammy, would she at least go away and consider the merits of a 12-month delay, and write to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield to set out her thinking once she has had a chance to do that?

Kemi Badenoch (Conservative, Saffron Walden)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. That is something that I have considered. I have had representations from the hon. Member for Chesterfield, Global Brands and other Members of Parliament, and I will take into account the points made by the hon. Member for Ilford North made in his speech.

On job losses, the announcement was made with enough time for people to prepare. We may not have been aware of covid, but postponing implementation any further would mean that the companies that adapted to the announcement about prohibiting post duty point dilution would be disadvantaged compared with companies that have not prepared since the announcement. We do not believe that that is fair.

On the point about the low alcohol value and moving the measure to stronger products, that is something that we have factored in. We will have a wider alcohol duty review—the hon. Gentleman referenced that. The Treasury has considered all those things, and we still do not feel that they are appropriate.

Wes Streeting (Labour, Ilford North)

I am grateful to the Minister for being generous in giving way again. She will be pleased to hear that I will not labour the previous point.

As part of the Treasury’s review, will the Minister take into account the case for minimum unit pricing for alcohol? We have already heard the positive case from Scotland, and there is an active campaign for it. It would be useful for all of us involved in policy making if the Treasury review looked at the merits and the arguments against so that Parliament can make informed decisions.

Kemi Badenoch (Conservative, Saffron Walden)

The Government are monitoring the emerging evidence from the introduction of minimum unit pricing in Scotland and, recently, Wales, and we have addressed public health concerns in the duty system. For example, in February 2019, duty rates on white ciders were increased to tackle consumption. We must remember that the UK operates a single excise regime, so it is not possible to devolve duty rates. It is worth noting that many of the problems that have been raised are actually caused by EU rules, according to officials. I can write to the hon. Gentleman and other Members who want further clarification on that point.

Felicity Buchan (Conservative, Kensington)

Does my hon. Friend agree that, although this is a very interesting debate, we are here to talk about taxation, not public health policy on alcohol?

Kemi Badenoch (Conservative, Saffron Walden)

I completely agree. I hope I have given enough answers to address the point raised by the amendment. We have already carried out an assessment on public health grounds, but this is tax legislation. I therefore ask that amendment 10 be withdrawn.

Clause 79 introduces a new sanction to prevent a practice that is currently available only in the wine and made-wine sectors and is used by only a small number of producers. Prevention of the practice by the use of prohibitive sanctions will address inequity of treatment across the alcohol industry and will create a level playing field so that alcohol products can compete more fairly in the marketplace. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

Rates of tobacco products duty

Stephen Flynn (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South)

I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 80, page 68, line 5, at end insert—

“(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the expected effects on public health of the changes made to the TPDA 1979 by this Section and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within one year of the passing of this Act.”

This amendment would require the Government to review the expected impact of the revised rates of duty on tobacco products on public health.

This amendment is in part very similar to the previous amendment, but it addresses tobacco duty, not alcohol duty. We want to review the impact of tobacco rates on public health. I take exception to the suggestions made in the previous debate that taxation and public health are not inextricably linked. The hon. Member for Ilford North said that we need a joined-up approach in the Treasury and across all sectors so that we can see the impact of taxation on other aspects of life. That certainly applies to tobacco as much as it does to alcohol duty.

Much like alcohol duty, tobacco duty is reserved to the UK Government. Again, that is deeply frustrating to those of us in Scotland, because it is the desire of the Scottish Government and the SNP to have a tobacco-free generation in Scotland by 2034. Obviously, tobacco rates will play a role in that, but that is not necessarily stopping us entirely and we are still making positive efforts to get there. The raft of different measures put in place by the Scottish Government include the 2020 ban on smoking near hospitals. There is also the regulation of electronic cigarettes and MVP devices, which will be an interesting and hot topic of debate in the coming years. A new national brand, Quit Your Way, was launched in 2018 and is being promoted on behalf of the stop smoking service. A Scottish ministerial working group on tobacco control is helping develop policy to reduce the impact of tobacco on Scotland’s health and to manage the register of tobacco and nicotine vapour product retailers.

That is all in addition to the Scottish Government’s previous efforts, including making prisons smoke free in November 2018, banning tobacco advertising in 2002, and banning smoking in enclosed public spaces in 2006, which is something that we all remember only too well. There are certainly many establishments in Scotland—I am sure the same is true in England—where one can still get the waft of the cigarettes that used to be smoked on those premises. A great deal of good has been and will be done, but ultimately the key lever of power lies, again, with the UK Government. That being the case, it is vital that consideration is once again given to public health and to the impact on it of decisions taken by the UK Government. I therefore suggest that the Government agree to the amendment, because it will be in their interests and in the interests of people across the United Kingdom.

Wes Streeting (Labour, Ilford North)

If the hon. Member for Kensington does not think that there should be a relationship between public health and taxation, I am afraid she is really going to hate what I have to say on clause 80 and the Scottish National party amendment. For the same reason as before, I think there is a real case for looking at these issues in a joined-up way, and ensuring that our public health objectives are reinforced by the Treasury.

In its January 2020 Budget submission, the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, in partnership with Action on Smoking and Health, recommended that the minimum excise tax should be updated annually to ensure that the minimum tax for tobacco products is the rate due for products sold at the weighted average price. In the light of those representations, I wonder whether the Government will consider the advice of public health experts, and what consideration they have given to committing to updating the MET on an annual basis from the date of the passing of this legislation.

As the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health has noted, the covid-19 crisis means that reducing tobacco-related health inequalities should be a priority, now and in the longer term, to improve population health and resilience to any future disease outbreaks. Differences in smoking prevalence and smoking-related diseases are an important factor in the differences in morbidity and mortality from covid-19. If we are not going to think seriously about some of these public health challenges in the middle of a public health crisis, when will we, frankly?

There has also been a rise during lockdown in people’s exposure to second-hand smoke in the home. Households with children are twice as likely to report second-hand smoke in the home. We have already heard about the Scottish Government’s determination in that respect, but the Government’s prevention Green Paper set the target of the UK being smoke-free by 2030, which is defined as a prevalence of 5% or less. If we are going to do that, we really have to commit to doing it and make changes across the board to support that important goal, which we across the House share.

The argument that public health and taxation are not intertwined does not hold water. It is not fashionable to be nice about George Osborne in today’s Conservative party—it is even less fashionable in the Labour party, but I already have a cross to bear in my own party—and his sugar tax was hugely controversial when it was introduced. I do not mind saying that as I sat watching the announcement in the Budget I was a big cynic, not least because I am generally in favour, as a point of principle, of progressive taxation. I worry about any new charges or levies that have flat implications for people and households with different levels of income.

Taxation by its nature ought to be progressive wherever possible, but the sugar tax has been shown, over the fullness of time, to have had a really positive impact on sugar consumption in this country. The evidence shows that a public health epidemic, which I think is what obesity is, particularly affects those from the poorest backgrounds. The same is probably true of smoking and its health consequences not just for smokers, but for the people—particularly children—who breathe the smoke around them.

The all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, ASH, the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, the Royal College of Physicians and many others are calling on the Government to adopt their road map to a smoke-free 2030. That would include the creation of a smoke-free 2030 fund, into which tobacco manufacturers would be legally required to give funds to finance the action needed to achieve the smoke-free 2030 goal.

What consideration have the Government given to the road map to a smoke-free 2030 and, in particular, the proposal that there should be some kind of levy on tobacco manufacturers? In the same way as the sugar tax was hypothecated to tackle obesity, what consideration have the Government given to introducing a hypothecated levy to take action to eliminate smoking?

Kemi Badenoch (Conservative, Saffron Walden)

Clause 80 increases the duty charge on all tobacco products by RPI inflation plus 2% in line with the tobacco duty escalator. In addition, the duty on hand-rolling tobacco will rise by an additional 4% to 6% above RPI inflation this year.

Smoking rates in the UK are falling, but they are still too high. Around 14% of adults are 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. That includes a commitment to continue the policy of maintaining high duty rates for tobacco products to improve public health. The UK has comprehensive tobacco control legislation, which is the envy of the world. However, 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 per year, including £2 billion in costs to the NHS of treating disease caused by smoking.

At the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that the Government were committed to maintaining the tobacco duty escalator until the end of the Parliament. The clause therefore specifies that the duty charged on all tobacco products will rise by 2% above RPI inflation. In addition, duty on hand-rolling tobacco will rise by an additional 4% to 6% above RPI inflation this year. The clause also specifies that for the minimum excise tax—the minimum amount of duty to be paid on a pack of cigarettes—the specific duty component will rise in line with cigarette duty.

The new tobacco duty rates will be treated as taking effect from 6 pm on the day they were announced: 11 March 2020. Recognising the potential interactions between tobacco duty rates and the illicit market, the Government announced at the Budget that they would publish a consultation on proposals for strengthened penalties for tobacco tax evasion as part of the track and trace system, including a £10,000 fixed penalty and a sliding scale for repeat offenders. In addition, the Government will strengthen the resources of trading standards and HMRC to help to combat the illicit tobacco trade, including the creation of a UK-wide HMRC intelligence-sharing hub. I hope the hon. Member for Ilford North will support that. I believe I have addressed quite a number of the points that he has raised.

I turn to amendment 11, which is designed to place a statutory requirement on my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to review the public health effects of changes to tobacco duty. 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. The Government are committed to improving public health by reducing smoking prevalence, and we co-ordinate these efforts through the tobacco control delivery plan 2017 to 2022, which also provides the framework for robust and ongoing policy evaluation. Accordingly, we review our duty rates at each fiscal event to ensure that they continue to meet our two objectives of protecting public health and raising revenue for vital public services.

I hope that reassures the Committee, and I ask Members to reject the amendment. The clause will continue our tried and tested policy of using high duty rates on tobacco products to make tobacco less affordable and continue the reduction in smoking prevalence, thus reducing the burden that smoking places on our public services.

On the point about a tobacco levy, I believe the Government laid out their position on introducing a levy in 2015. We do not believe a levy is an effective way to raise revenue or protect public health.

Rates for light passenger or light goods vehicles, motorcycles etc

Kemi Badenoch (Conservative, Saffron Walden)

Clause 81 makes changes to uprate the RPI vehicle excise duty rates for cars, vans and motorcycles with effect from 1 April 2020. VED is paid on vehicle ownership, and rates depend on the vehicle type and first registration date. The Government have uprated vehicle excise duty for cars, vans and motorcycles with inflation every year since 2010, which means rates have remained unchanged in real terms during this time. As announced in the 2018 Budget, all vehicle excise duty revenues will be used specifically for the national roads fund from this year, to provide certainty for road investment.

The changes made by clause 81 will uprate vehicle excise duty for cars, vans and motorcycles by RPI for the 10th successive year. As a result, the rates are unchanged in real terms since 2010, and that comes on top of the Government’s decision to freeze fuel duty rates for the ninth successive year. By April 2021, this will have saved the average car driver £1,200 in comparison with the pre-2010 escalator.

From April 2017, a reformed VED system was introduced that strengthened the environmental incentive when cars are first purchased, with all cars paying a standard rate in subsequent years. The standard rate will increase by only £5, the flat rate for vans will increase by £5 and the rate for motorcyclists will increase by no more than £2. These changes will ensure that the Government continue to support motorists with the cost of living, and that the vehicle excise duty system continues to incentivise the purchase of lower emission vehicles.

Felicity Buchan (Conservative, Kensington)

Does my hon. Friend agree that as the economy comes out of the dislocation of coronavirus, we need to build a greener and cleaner economy? Incentivising the use of low-carbon cars is part of that, and clearly we cannot do so just through the tax system; we also need a structure of electric charging points. I am glad to say that my borough is one of the top boroughs in the country in that regard. As we look to build a greener economy, I commend this clause and the related clauses.

Kemi Badenoch (Conservative, Saffron Walden)

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I agree with her.

Wes Streeting (Labour, Ilford North)

Following a previous theme, we support this approach to incentivising the use of greener and more environmentally friendly vehicles. It shows how decisions taken at the Treasury can support the public policy aims of other Departments and promote positive consumer change. Clearly, we have to do a lot more to ensure that people are using environmentally friendly vehicles, which produce fewer emissions and have a less detrimental impact on air quality and the wider environment than other vehicles do. I, in common with many stakeholders, welcome the reduced rate applied to alternatively fuelled light passenger vehicles, including hybrids and those powered by bioethanol and liquid petroleum gas.

Kemi Badenoch (Conservative, Saffron Walden)

I think that is a point we can all agree on. The Government are doing a lot to encourage the uptake of low emission and zero emission vehicles. As I mentioned earlier, the reformed VED system was introduced in 2017 for new cars. To elaborate, on first registration the owners of zero emission models pay nothing, while those of the most polluting pay more than £2,000. In subsequent years, most cars move to a standard rate, which is currently set at £145. The exceptions are electric cars, which attract a zero rate, and hybrids, which receive a £10 discount.

In the Budget, the Government announced a number of further steps to reduce zero emission vehicle costs, including exempting zero emission cars from the vehicle excise duty expensive car supplement; extending low company car tax rates for 2024-25, as we discussed earlier; and extending the plug-in grant scheme for zero emission cars and ultra-low emission vans, taxis and motorcycles until 2022-22.

Applicable CO2 emissions figure determined using WLTP values

Kemi Badenoch (Conservative, Saffron Walden)

Clause 82 makes changes that ensure that CO2 emissions figures for vehicle excise duty will be based on the world harmonized light-duty vehicles test procedure—WLTP—for all new cars registered from 1 April 2020. Until 1 April 2020, the owners of new cars were liable to pay VED based on CO2 emissions figures provided under the new European driving cycle test procedure, which is otherwise known as the NEDC. That test underestimates real-world driving emissions by up to 40%. In the 2018 Budget, it was announced that from April 2020, VED would be based on WLTP, which closely reflects real-world driving emissions. Consequently, vehicle excise duty liabilities for new cars purchased from April 2020 may change.

In the 2018 Budget, the Government announced a review of the impacts of WLTP on vehicle taxes. In July 2019, the Government announced that as mitigation to help the industry manage the transition to WLTP, company car tax rates would be temporarily reduced, and that the Government would publish a call for evidence on vehicle excise duty. Draft legislation for the Finance Bill was published on L day 2019 to switch on WLTP from April 2020 and to implement the new CCT rates.

Clause 82 confirms that CO2 emissions figures for vehicle excise duty will be based on WLTP for all new cars registered from 1 April 2020, and that all cars registered before 1 April 2020 will continue to use existing NEDC CO2 values for VED purposes. As WLTP is more representative of real-world driving conditions, this measure ensures that VED is based on a more robust regime for measuring CO2 emissions. It will also allow motorists to make more informed purchasing decisions when considering the CO2 impact of their new car.

Wes Streeting (Labour, Ilford North)

I do not think that we need to dwell too long on this, but it is worth exploring a few points that were made during the Government’s consultation and to test some stakeholders’ arguments. Assertions are sometimes made, but it is important to revisit the arguments and see whether they stand up to the scrutiny of evidence. It will be interesting to hear the Treasury’s view on that.

There was a concern that the WLTP charging rates could lead to distortion ahead of April 2020, because consumers might bring forward purchasing decisions to avoid potential tax increases on new cars. Given that April 2020 has passed, it would be interesting to know whether such distortion has actually occurred. What assessment has the Treasury made of that?

On the environmental impact, some respondents stressed that company cars were more environmentally friendly than private cars. The argument goes that it is important to keep people in that market by adjusting company car taxation to reflect the lower impact. What analysis has the Treasury done of that claim? Does the Treasury think that that is a valid argument, or simply an assertion?

Finally, some concern was raised that under WLTP values, there could be an above-average increase in the reported CO2 emissions of cars with smaller engines, whereas cars with higher CO2 emissions would not be affected by the change to the same extent. How much does that argument hold water with the Minister?

Kemi Badenoch (Conservative, Saffron Walden)

On the question of why we are treating cars registered before 6 April 2020 differently and whether that would create a distortion, the WLTP testing standards were introduced in 2017 and EU legislation required manufacturers to record the CO2 emissions for both regimes. We have not sought to change the tax treatment of existing cars; we aim to encourage people who purchase new cars to choose low-CO2-emitting models.

On the analysis that the hon. Gentleman asks for, it is probably too soon to tell. The impact is linear, and we published some findings in July 2019 when we set rates. I can have that information provided to him, and I can write to him on that point. I do not have the full answers for the analyses that he is asking for.

Electric vehicles: extension of exemption

Kemi Badenoch (Conservative, Saffron Walden)

Clause 83 makes changes to exempt all zero-emission cars from the vehicle excise duty supplement that applies to cars with a list price exceeding £40,000 from 1 April 2020. The background is that the Government use vehicle taxes, including vehicle excise duty, to encourage the take-up of cars with low carbon dioxide emissions to help to meet our legally binding climate change targets. Vehicle excise duty incentives help to reduce the cost of zero-emission cars, which is one of the most significant barriers to uptake. From April 2017, on first registration, zero-emission cars paid no vehicle excise duty, while the most polluting cars paid more than £2,000. In subsequent years, while most cars move to a standard rate—£150 in 2020-21—electric vehicles attract a zero rate. Previously, however, all vehicles with a list price exceeding £40,000, including electric vehicles, paid a vehicle excise duty supplement of £325 in 2020-21 from years two to six following registration.

Under the changes made by clause 83, from 1 April 2020, all zero-emission light passenger vehicles registered from 1 April 2017 until 31 March 2025 will be exempt from the vehicle excise duty expensive car supplement. That will reduce vehicle excise duty liability for almost a third of zero-emission cars by an estimated £1,625. This demonstrates that the Government will continue to incentivise the uptake of zero-emission cars through the 2020s. The measure will incentivise uptake by reducing tax liabilities and aid the Government in achieving net zero. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

Wes Streeting (Labour, Ilford North)

Clause 83 is obviously a welcome measure; we have heard from industry representatives that removing the VED surcharge for electric vehicles will encourage uptake. The RAC’s head of policy, Nicholas Lyes, states:

“Our research suggests that cost is one of the biggest barriers for drivers who want to switch to an electric vehicle and the steps taken”

by the Government

“will provide clarity and certainty for both consumers and manufacturers.”

I wonder whether the Government are looking at what more they can do to reduce the cost burden for people switching to electric vehicles. People make choices all the time about the purchase of new vehicles, and price sensitivity is one of the biggest aspects of that. If someone uses their car every day for regular journeys—to commute to and from work, for example—and has access to charging points at home, at work or in the vicinity, switching to an electric vehicle will make a real difference. It can be cost-effective as well as an environmentally friendly choice, particularly in the light of the clause.

However, for lots of people who do not commute regularly but have a family car for use at weekends and perhaps over the summer holidays, the financial choice is not always as straightforward. Although the environmental factors may be compelling and people might want to switch to an electric vehicle, the financial barrier is still too high. I wonder what more the Government can do, through industry support or other means, to further incentivise the switch to electric vehicles, as it would make a real difference.

On infrastructure, it is important that more is done to ensure that electric vehicle charging points are readily available for use—that is really an issue for the Department for Transport and local authorities, but at some point they will come knocking at the Treasury’s door. The Minister is smiling; I am sure that she is very familiar with that experience. I wonder how favourably she is looking on those arguments, because although progress is being made to expand electric charging points—the Mayor of London cares strongly about the issue, and I discussed it recently with the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham—much more progress can still be made in all parts of the country, so Treasury support would be very welcome.

Kemi Badenoch (Conservative, Saffron Walden)

The hon. Gentleman makes a point that we hear again and again about the cost of low emission vehicles. These changes are part of a wider package of tax and spend incentives—I have mentioned company car tax rates and the plug-in car grant.

On the question of what more we can do, the best mechanism is the call for evidence that the Government published at the Budget, which includes how vehicle excise duty can further incentivise the uptake of zero-emission cars. That is probably the best way for the industry and Parliament to suggest what more we can do to make low emission vehicles more affordable.

The hon. Gentleman is right that we get asked a lot about infrastructure and what more we can do to provide charge points. We understand that access to high-quality, convenient charging infrastructure is critical if drivers are to make the switch to electric vehicles confidently. That was why, at the Budget, we announced £500 million over the next five years to support the roll-out of a fast charging network for electric vehicles, ensuring that drivers will never be more than 30 miles from a rapid charging station.

Motor caravans

Kemi Badenoch (Conservative, Saffron Walden)

Clause 84 reduces vehicle excise duty liability for new motorhomes to support British motorhome manufacturers and UK holidaymakers. From 12 March 2020, most new motorhomes pay a flat rate of VED at £270 annually. To ensure that, in the future, motorhome vehicle excise duty liabilities reflect environmental impact and to incentivise the development and uptake of lower emission motorhomes, from 1 April 2021, motorhome VED liabilities will be aligned with graduated van vehicle excise duty.

From September 2019, EU regulatory changes have required motorhomes to record carbon dioxide emissions on the vehicle type approval document. Previously, the majority of motorhomes attracted a flat rate of £265, but from September 2019, due to their high emissions, new motorhomes saw a significant increase in their first-year vehicle excise duty liabilities. Motorhome dealerships and the main industry body, the National Caravan Council, expressed concern about the changes. The sector argued that, as motorhomes are generally derived from vans, their VED liability should be aligned with vans, rather than passenger vehicles.

The changes made by clause 84 mean that, from 12 March 2020, new motorhomes are more closely aligned with vans for VED purposes. Manufacturers are no longer required to provide a CO2 emissions figure when they register the vehicle with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. As a result, all new motorhomes will move to a flat rate of vehicle excise duty. Most new motorhome vehicles will be included in the private light goods vehicle tax class, with the minority that weigh more than 3,500 kg included in the private heavy goods class. As a result, new motorhomes’ first-year VED liabilities will be reduced by up to £1,905. The change will affect owners of motorhomes first registered from 12 March 2020. There are typically about 15,000 motorhomes registered in the UK annually.

The change will reduce new motorhome vehicle excise duty liabilities, and better align them with vans, rather than passenger vehicles. It will support British motorhome manufacturers and holidaymakers using motorhomes throughout the UK. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

Wes Streeting (Labour, Ilford North)

This debate is particularly timely, given last night’s Adjournment debate, which was led by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), who told the House that Hull is the capital of caravan manufacturing. Along with my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), she has been a doughty champion of the industry. That industry has been particularly hard hit by covid-19 because it relies so much on the leisure and tourism industry, which is still effectively shut down. Industry bodies and users were looking for this change, so I am happy to indicate that we support the clause.

Miriam Cates (Conservative, Penistone and Stocksbridge)

I welcome the measure. The Moto-Trek manufacturer in my constituency makes exclusive hand-built motorhomes, so I know that the clause is very much welcomed by the industry. It certainly makes sense to tax motorhomes as vans, since they are mostly built on van chassis and do not do many miles, although they do, of course, emit carbon dioxide. It is right that we incentivise the manufacture of low emission vehicles, but motorhome users are very much committed to UK holidays and do not fly as a result, which is very positive for the environment. As we come out of covid, it is really important that we do everything that we can for UK manufacturers, for UK motorhome vehicle sales and, of course, for tourism. I therefore very much welcome the clause.

Exemption in respect of medical courier vehicles

Alison Thewliss (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Central)

I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 85, page 72, line 33, after “supplies” insert “, including human breastmilk”.

This amendment would ensure that vehicles carrying human breastmilk would benefit from the exemption from Vehicle Excise Duty.

I am delighted to continue my personal journey to ensure that breastfeeding is mentioned in every possible place in this House. I am chair of the all-party group on infant feeding and inequalities, so I declare that interest up front.

The measure I seek to add to the Bill would cost the Government very little, if anything at all, but would send a very strong signal that the Government support and recognise breast milk banks across the UK. Sub-paragraph 2(b) of proposed new paragraph 6A to schedule 2 to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 refers to

“medicines and other medical supplies”.

I am not quite sure whether that would capture breast milk. I seek clarification from the Minister on that, because I do not think it is clear enough, which was why I tabled the amendment.

Human breast milk banks exist across the UK. Some do not exist quite to the size and scale that we would like, so the amendment would help to encourage them that there is Government support for what they are doing. I mention the Human Milk Foundation, the Northwest Human Milk Bank, Hearts Milk Bank and Milk Bank Scotland, which is based in Glasgow and the one that I know best. Having spoken to Debbie Barnett, its donor milk bank co-ordinator, I know that Milk Bank Scotland does not have its own vehicles at the moment, but relies on the Glasgow Children’s Hospital Charity volunteers, who transport the milk, after picking it up from donors, and take it out to those who need it. Having its own vehicles would be something for a future point, but the amendment would certainly support the milk bank, and others across the UK, in doing that.

Like blood, breast milk has to be properly processed, and there are procedures in place for doing so. Like blood, it needs special carriage to take it from donors to the milk banks for processing, and back out again. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline 93 on donor breast milk banks says that, when transporting milk to the milk bank, critical conditions for transport include

“temperature and time limit, to ensure that donor milk remains frozen during transport.”

The guideline also states that donor milk should be transported

“in secure, tamper-evident containers and packaging”

and that a range of procedures are in place for achieving that.

In chapter 33 of its guide to the quality and safety of tissues and cells for human application, on the distribution of and transport conditions for human milk, the European directorate for the quality of medicines states:

“During transport, milk should remain frozen and dry ice may be used for this purpose.

The use of validated, easily cleaned, insulated transport containers is recommended.

The transport procedure should be validated, and the temperature of the transport container monitored during transportation.”

All those measures are relatively similar to how blood and other blood products are transported around the UK, and would fit quite well with the medical courier vehicles exemption set out in the Bill. Many of these organisations are charities, and they would very much appreciate support in moving milk around the country.

I appeal to the Government to accept the amendment, which is uncontentious—and indisputable, really. Doing so would send a good signal that the UK Government support milk banks, the people across the UK who wish to use them, and the science behind them. They are particularly important in supporting premature babies in their earliest days. The World Health Organisation recently indicated the significance of breast milk during coronavirus, and that women should be supported whenever possible to feed their babies with human breast milk. Covid-19 is not present in breast milk, and the milk is therefore of huge benefit in supporting babies in their earliest days. I encourage Ministers to take on the amendment, if they can take on anything at all, and to show support for milk banks across the UK.

Kemi Badenoch (Conservative, Saffron Walden)

Amendment 12 would extend the exemption so that it applied to people carrying human breast milk. I do not think that any of us would disagree with that, but clause 85 already covers the transportation of human breast milk. The purpose-built vehicles used by medical courier charities, which are exempted from VED by the measure, transport not just blood, but a wide range of medical products, including X-rays, MRI scans, plasma and human breast milk.

The inclusion of the amendment in the Bill would make things more difficult. Its wording is quite vague, it does not clearly define the vehicles that it is trying to capture, and it would create the risk of abuse. We believe that the matter is already covered by clause 85. Although the Government fully support the sentiment of the amendment, as breast milk is already captured under the clause, I ask the Committee to reject the it.

Alison Thewliss (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Central)

I would like to press the amendment to a vote, to add to the clarity of the clause.

Rebated fuel: private pleasure craft

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

That schedule 10 be the Tenth schedule to the Bill.

Jesse Norman (Conservative, Hereford and South Herefordshire)

It is lovely to see you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. I apologise to hon. Members who have had the pain of seeing me do the urgent question in between our two Public Bill Committee sittings; I can only admire their strength and resilience.

Clause 86 introduces schedule 10, which enables changes to be made to the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 to require white diesel to be used for filling private pleasure craft such as yachts and canal barges, to meet our international obligations under the EU withdrawal agreement. It is an enabling power, and it follows consultation with private pleasure craft users and fuel suppliers in 2019.

There is no current timetable for commencement of these changes. Details of implementation via future secondary legislation will be set out in due course, after the consultation that the Government are planning this summer on wider changes to red diesel that were announced at Budget 2020. Once commenced, the changes will affect only the type of fuel that private pleasure craft can use and not the amount of fuel duty users pay. They already pay the standard white diesel rate for propelling their craft, and they are entitled to use rebated red diesel for other, non-propulsion purposes, such as heating and cooking. The changes will not affect that. Where craft have a shared tank for propulsion and non-propulsion purposes, such as heating, the Government will explore options that prevent users from paying more duty for their non-propulsion use than they would otherwise have to pay.

In 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the use of red diesel to propel private pleasure craft breached the fuel marker directive, which is designed to ensure, given the variation in duty treatment in member states, that any misuse of diesel crossing EU internal borders can be detected. Over the summer of 2019, the Government consulted on how they intended to implement the Court judgment by requiring private pleasure craft to use white diesel for propulsion. More than 1,600 replies were received. At the present time, private pleasure craft use the lower-duty red diesel for both propulsion and non-propulsion, but pay a top-up to the white diesel rate on the proportion of fuel that they use to propel their craft.

Last year’s consultation saw evidence on the impact that requiring private pleasure craft to use white diesel propulsion would have on users of diesel-propelled craft operating in UK inland waterways and along the coast, and on the companies that supply diesel to them. The responses are informing implementation issues for suppliers, known as registered dealers in controlled oils, or RDCOs, and users of diesel fuel.

The changes made by schedule 10, once commenced by secondary legislation, will amend sections 12 and 14E of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979, to disallow the rebates that apply to diesel, biodiesel and bioblend not used for road vehicles on the fuel used for propelling private pleasure craft. In practice, such craft have not been benefiting from the rebated rate on fuel use for propulsion, as they have been paying the additional duty to ensure that they pay the full rate as required while we are in the transition period.

Schedule 10 creates new penalties for using marked fuel for propelling a private pleasure craft, similar to those that exist when marked fuel is used in road vehicles, and also gives Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs powers to take samples. It also provides for secondary legislation to mitigate the impact of the measure on houseboats and permanently moored residential craft; as they do not use fuel to propel their houseboat, they should be entitled to continue to use red diesel.

Finally, the schedule amends schedule 7A to the Value Added Tax Act 1994, to provide for the removal, if necessary, of the reference to marked fuel used in private pleasure craft in respect of which a declaration has been received. It provides that the changes will be brought into force on the days and in the areas appointed in secondary legislation at a future date.

This clause and schedule will ensure that we respect our international commitments, by enabling us to make changes to legislation covering fuel use by a private pleasure craft to the extent required to meet those commitments. I therefore commend the clause and the schedule to the Committee.

Wes Streeting (Labour, Ilford North)

I should have said this morning that, although those on the Government Front Bench are doing a joint effort today to give each other a break, this is my penance for the shadow Chief Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South, handling the digital service tax single-handedly last week, so I am afraid that Members will be getting even more tired of my voice than the Financial Secretary’s voice.

I want to raise a few points on clause 86. First, as the Minister said, this clause and schedule are intended to enact the judgment of the European Court of Justice and to make sure we abide by our obligations under the withdrawal agreement. The challenge for various industry bodies is that this proposal effectively means that we are going to have to go through a number of changes, unless the Government intend this to be a permanent change in approach.

It is a significant disruption for the industry. British Marine, the main leisure boating industry body, said the change would present

“severe problems for boat users and the industry”,

and that was the position of all representative bodies. Given the issues raised by industry bodies and the strength of objections, why has the Minister sought to implement the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union when we will have left the European Union and, at some point in the not too distant future, these sorts of judgments will not have to be abided by?

Suppliers and industry bodies have deemed the switch as not viable due to its being uneconomical and impractical to change waterside fuelling locations from red to white diesel. What will the Minister do to support suppliers in this transition and to ensure that commercial users, such as fishing boats, are not negatively impacted by the switch?

Jesse Norman (Conservative, Hereford and South Herefordshire)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. We fully appreciate the degree of concern that has been shown by the industry. As he will be aware, we are under an obligation to abide by EU judgments while we remain under the withdrawal agreement. The proposal underlines how seriously we take legal obligations that have been incurred in the EU withdrawal agreement, and that includes implementing the result of the European Court of Justice judgment.

It should be made clear that, during the transition period, if the Commission were not convinced that necessary steps had been taken to implement the judgement, it could, in principle, refer the case back to the European Court and ask it to levy fines for non-compliance. Those fines can be pretty substantial—up to €792,000 a day plus a potential one-off fine of at least €10 million—so we are very focused on communicating the seriousness of our intent in passing this enabling legislation. We do not believe that paying fines to the EU, especially as we have now left the EU, would be an effective or good use of taxpayers’ money, not least when we are making broader changes to reduce the entitlement to use red diesel more widely.

It is worth pointing out one other thing: we have not set an implementation date. The reason is that we recognise that it is important for Government to continue to work with users of private pleasure craft and with fuel suppliers to understand how they can implement the changes, precisely to make sure that those changes are as little onerous and as easy to enact as they can be. It is only once we have seen that consultation, gone through that process, reflected further on it and had a chance to consider how the legislation could be framed that we will be able to return to this issue.

Question put and agreed to.

Rates of air passenger duty from 1 April 2021

Kemi Badenoch (Conservative, Saffron Walden)

Clause 87 makes changes to ensure that the long-haul rates of air passenger duty for the tax year 2021-22 increase in line with the retail price index. The change will make sure that the aviation sector continues to play its part in contributing towards funding our vital public services.

Aviation plays a crucial role in keeping Britain open for business, and the UK Government are keen to support its long-term success. Indeed, the UK has one of the highest direct connectivity scores in Europe, according to the latest Airports Council International Europe report. The Government appreciate the difficulties that the airline industry currently faces as a result of coronavirus. That is why the Chancellor provided a comprehensive package for all businesses affected by the virus on 20 March. However, as air passenger duty is paid on a per passenger basis, the recent decline in passenger demand will have resulted in a reduction in air passenger duty liabilities for airlines. As the industry returns to health, it is right that the revenue raised from air passenger duty should continue to remain in line.

The clause increases the long-haul reduced rate for economy class nominally by only £2 and the standard rate for all classes above economy by £4—a real-terms freeze. The rounding of air passenger duty raised to the nearest £1 means that short-haul rates will remain frozen in nominal terms for the eighth year in a row, which benefits about 80% of all airline passengers. More broadly, the Government will consult on aviation tax reform. As part of the consultation, we will consider the case for changing the air passenger duty treatment of domestic flights, such as reintroducing the return leg exemption, and for increasing the number of international distance bands.

The changes made by the clause will increase the long-haul APD rates for the tax year 2021-22 by the RPI. Air passenger duty is a fair and efficient tax, where the amount paid corresponds to the distance and class of travel of the passenger and is due only when airlines are flying passengers. The changes ensure that the aviation sector will continue to play its part in contributing towards funding our vital public services. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

Wes Streeting (Labour, Ilford North)

The industry has stated that the proposed changes do not support it and its net zero plans. The news that the airline industry does not like air passenger duty will come as a surprise to no one. As we are debating air passenger duty under clause 87, and as Treasury Ministers declined to come to the House in response to an urgent question from the Chair of the Transport Committee, this is an opportunity for me to raise concerns directly with Treasury Ministers about support for the airline industry in the light of the challenges it faces because of covid-19.

The Minister said that the airline industry has benefited from Government support. In so far as any industry and employer has benefited from the general schemes made available—the job retention scheme, the self-employment income support scheme, the various business grants and loans that are available—that is true. However, back in March, the Chancellor referred to specific support for the aviation industry. It is now June and that support has not yet materialised. In fact, we do not even have any outline of what that support could entail or whether it will materialise at all.

Let us bear in mind that the industry contributes £22 billion a year to the British economy. It supports 230,000 jobs in aviation and throughout the manufacturing supply chain. If we take into account the broader sweep of jobs based around the supply chain, airports and travel, we are probably looking at something closer to 500,000 jobs.

Ministers, whether in the Treasury or the Department for Transport, ought to be embarrassed by the fact that, only a matter of weeks ago, a leading figure in the airline industry told the Transport Committee that the Government have been “asleep at the wheel”. That is not the way that the Treasury should approach a major industry. Of course, the airline industry has a lot to change in order to meet our country’s net zero ambitions, but I am sure we would all agree that we would prefer it if the aviation industry got to that point through research, innovation, sensible application of technology, change of consumer behaviour and a just transition to support the workforce as the industry changes, rather than because airlines go bust and people lose their jobs.

In our proceedings this morning, we referred to the fact that unemployment is already a serious challenge in our country. We see that reflected in the figures today. Unless Ministers take action, things are going to get a hell of a lot worse for an awful lot of people. As I told the poor aviation Minister, who was sent along to answer for Treasury Ministers in the urgent question—with her hands tied behind her back because she had zero latitude to speak for the Treasury—the Department for Transport is neither use nor ornament on this matter.

Only the Treasury can now provide the support that our aviation industry needs. People’s jobs up and down the country are counting on them. It is wholly unacceptable that the Chancellor made a commitment back in March, but has not put his money where his mouth is since. I hope that Ministers might give some semblance of explanation or hope to people in the airline industry and those whose jobs rely on it more broadly that the Government are listening and are going to act in short order.

Anthony Browne (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

This is my first ever Bill Committee, but I was under the impression that we were meant to talk about the actual elements of the Bill, rather than wider economic policy or industrial strategies for business. The hon. Member for Ilford North has kindly emphasised all the support the British Government are giving the airline industry, but it is completely irrelevant for discussion now.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

I would just say to the hon. Gentleman that the decision on what is spoken about and what is not is mine. My general attitude is to encourage participation and comment. I will show the same latitude to both Government and Opposition Members. I call the Minister.

Kemi Badenoch (Conservative, Saffron Walden)

On the issue of a specific support package for the industry, the hon. Member for Ilford North has mentioned the range of measures that we have put in place, and we know that the DFT, the Transport Secretary and the aviation Minister are in close contact with the aviation sector. What the hon. Gentleman does not know is that Treasury Ministers, including myself, have also received lots of representations from the industry—it is not an issue that we are ignoring—but we need to be careful about how we make interventions.

The aviation sector is important to the UK economy. When those companies, as with any other companies that make a material contribution to the economy, find themselves in trouble as a result of coronavirus and have exhausted the measures already available to them, the Transport Secretary and Chancellor are listening to understand the issues, but any intervention needs to represent value for money for the taxpayer.

As we saw in the urgent question earlier today, there are so many people we need to help. We need to be careful about how we spend taxpayers’ money and where it should be directed. At this time, the Chancellor has not made that decision, but we will continue to work closely with the sector, and we are willing to consider the situation of individual firms, rather than working a sector-wide basis, once all the other Government schemes and commercial options have been explored and exhausted. That includes—I am sure this is something Opposition Members agree with—raising capital from existing investors and approaching other investors first.

Amounts of gross gaming yield charged to gaming duty

Kemi Badenoch (Conservative, Saffron Walden)

Clause 88 increases the thresholds for the gross gaming yield bands for gaming duty in line with inflation. This is a very small change, which is assumed by public finances.

Gaming duty is a banded tax paid by casinos in the UK, with marginal tax rates varying between 15% and 50%. Public finances assume that the bands are uprated with inflation each year to prevent fiscal drag. Without an annual uprating, over time, casinos would pay gaming duty at higher rates, so the change made by clause 88 uprates the bands of gaming duty in line with inflation. That is expected by the industry and assumed in public finances. Rates of gaming duty will remain unchanged. The change will take effect for accounting periods starting on or after 1 April 2020. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

Wes Streeting (Labour, Ilford North)

We have heard representations from the chief executive of the Betting and Gaming Council, Michael Dugher, who will be known to many hon. Members across the House. The council is calling for reform of business rates and casino taxation. In the light of its representation, which, unsurprisingly, makes the industry case, and reflecting on some of our earlier conversations about alcohol duties, tobacco and smoking, what plans does the Treasury have, if any, to look at reform of gambling taxation generally and at the specific reforms Mr Dugher is calling for of business rates and casino taxation?

We have also heard strong representations from hon. Members across the House, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), about their work to highlight the impact that gambling has on people’s lives. Irresponsible gambling blights people’s lives. In the light of our conversation this morning about the positive role that Treasury decisions can play in promoting good public health outcomes, is the Treasury minded to look at those issues in the round as part of a wider review of the gaming duty and gambling taxation more generally?

Kemi Badenoch (Conservative, Saffron Walden)

The answer is to look at what the duty is designed to do. It is a change to gambling taxation; it is not related to the regulation of gambling activity, which, as we know, is the remit of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.

The Government continue to monitor the effectiveness of existing gambling controls. As the December 2019 election manifesto set out, we intend to review the Gambling Act 2005. We will always consider the potential impact of tax changes at the same time.

We should remember that freezing the duty bands would have a small impact on public finances, while pushing smaller, generally regional, casinos into higher duty bands. The casino industry paid about £220 million in duty in the last financial year. The Government believe that the sector already makes a fair contribution to the public finances. I do not believe it is the small regional casinos that we would be looking to affect in terms of problem gambling.

Rates of climate change levy until 1 April 2021

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 90 stand part.

Kemi Badenoch (Conservative, Saffron Walden)

Clauses 89 and 90 ensure that the climate change levy main and reduced rates are updated for the years 2020-21 and 2021-22 to reflect the rates announced at Budget 2018. The climate change levy came into effect in April 2001. It is a UK-wide tax on the non-domestic use of energy from gas, electricity, liquefied petroleum gas and solid fuels. It promotes the efficient use of energy to help to meet the UK’s international and domestic targets for cutting emissions of greenhouse gases. Energy-intensive businesses that participate in the climate change agreements scheme run by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy qualify for reduced rates in return for meeting energy efficiency or carbon reduction targets.

Budget 2016 announced that electricity and gas rates would be equalised by 2025, because electricity is becoming a much cleaner source of energy than gas as we reduce our reliance on coal and use more renewable resources instead. These changes give effect to rate changes announced in 2018 and reaffirm the commitment to equalise the main rates for gas and electricity. The reduced rates will be subject to increases in line with inflation, as in previous years. In order to ensure better consistency in the tax treatment of portable fuels and the off-gas grid market, it was announced in the 2017 Budget that the climate change levy rate for liquefied petroleum gas would be frozen at the 2019-20 level in the years 2020-21 and 2021-22. For that reason, the reduced rate for liquefied petroleum gas that applies to CCA participants will remain set at 23% for the years 2020-21 and 2021-22.

Clauses 89 and 90 will update the climate change levy’s main and reduced rates for 2020-21 and 2021-22, as announced in the 2018 Budget, to reflect that electricity is now a cleaner energy source than gas. The electricity main rate will be lowered, whereas the gas main rate will increase so that it reaches 60% of the electricity rate in 2021-22. The rates were announced over two years ago, to give businesses plenty of notice to prepare for the rate changes. To limit the impact on the CCA scheme, participants will see their climate change levy liability increase by retail price index inflation only. That protects the competitiveness of over 9,000 facilities in energy-intensive industries across 50 sectors. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

Wes Streeting (Labour, Ilford North)

The Chancellor suggested that pollution taxes would increase as a result of his Budget, but Jayne Harrold, PwC’s UK environmental tax leader, said that under the 2020 Budget:

“There was not really an increase in pollution taxes as the Chancellor suggested with the climate change levy (CCL) changes announced. In fact, freezing CCL rates on electricity to level up the gas rate faster based on carbon emissions will reduce the amount of pollution tax applied. Extending climate change agreements for two years is equally minor good news for energy intensive businesses who get significant CCL reliefs.”

Can the Minister give us a sense of what more the Treasury will do to ensure that taxes from polluting behaviour increase?

I also want to probe on the green gas levy. The 2020 Budget promised the introduction of a green gas levy to help fund the use of greener fuels, to work in conjunction with the rise in the climate change levy. When and how do the Government plan to introduce the levy?

Kemi Badenoch (Conservative, Saffron Walden)

I missed the hon. Member’s last question, but I can write to him on this issue, if he is happy with that. I go back to the question whether we are doing enough to achieve net zero. The answer is that we are going as far as we can, but we must also ensure that we protect the competitiveness of businesses throughout the UK. As announced in 2016, the changes to the climate change levy rates will see electricity and gas main rates equalised. That is being done incrementally—not because we do not want to go far enough, but in order to protect the tax liability of businesses. The Treasury review on the cost of transitioning to net zero will consider the role of tax in the transition. Does that answer the question?

Wes Streeting (Labour, Ilford North)

My question was specifically about the changes that the Government plan to make in relation to the green gas levy, which had been announced in the Budget. When and how do the Government plan to introduce the green gas levy?

Kemi Badenoch (Conservative, Saffron Walden)

I cannot give the hon. Member an answer to that, but I will definitely write to him. I think officials will be able to brief him on the green gas levy. I cannot talk about it in the context of the climate change levy, which is what we are discussing, but I take his point. It is a good question. It is a Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy competency, which is why I do not have an answer from a Treasury perspective, but I can speak to my counterparts in that Department and get back to him.

Wes Streeting (Labour, Ilford North)

Thank you.

Rates of landfill tax

Kemi Badenoch (Conservative, Saffron Walden)

The clause increases both the standard and lower rates of landfill tax in line with inflation from 1 April 2020, as announced at Budget 2018.

Landfill tax has been immensely successful in reducing the amount of waste sent to landfill. Landfill tax provides a disincentive to use landfill and has made it the most expensive waste treatment method in terms of average gate fees. The success of the tax has contributed to a 70% decrease in waste sent to landfill since 2000. Household recycling has increased to 45%, from 18%, over the same period. The benefits of this reduction are twofold: first, there are economic benefits as valuable resources are used better, rather than being simply tipped into a hole in the ground, and secondly, there are environmental benefits, not only from the increased efficiency in the use of our precious resources, but through a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from decomposing waste.

When waste is diverted from landfill we promote more sustainable waste treatment practice, such as recycling. The Government want to move towards a more circular economy and we are working together with business, industry, civil society and the public to achieve that aim. Landfill tax is one of the Government’s primary levers in achieving this.

When disposed at a landfill site, each tonne of standard-rated material is currently taxed at £91.35 and lower-rate material draws a tax of £2.90 per tonne. These changes will see rates per tonne increase to £94.15 and £3 respectively from 1 April 2020. By increasing rates in line with RPI we maintain the crucial incentive for the industry to use alternative waste treatment methods and continue the move towards a more circular economy. The increase in landfill tax will affect businesses and local authorities that send waste to landfill, but by continuing the positive trend of managing waste more sustainably businesses and local authorities will be able to reduce their landfill tax liabilities.

In conclusion, clause 91 increases the two rates of landfill tax in line with inflation from 1 April 2020, as announced in the autumn Budget in 2018. The clause maintains the incentives in the landfill tax for businesses and local authorities to divert waste treatment away from landfill and to continue to invest in sustainable methods of waste disposal, helping the Government meet their environmental objectives. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

Wes Streeting (Labour, Ilford North)

Aside from paying tribute to my own local authority, the London Borough of Redbridge, and other local authorities for the efforts they have made to reduce the amount of waste going into landfill, there is only so much that can be said about an inflationary increase in landfill tax. I am happy for us to support the clause.

Carbon emissions tax

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss, That schedule 11 be the Eleventh schedule to the Bill.

Kemi Badenoch (Conservative, Saffron Walden)

At Budget 2020 the Government announced that they would make the necessary legislative changes to the carbon emissions tax in Finance Bill 2020 to ensure that this policy remained a viable option to maintain carbon pricing in the UK after the transition period, in the event that a trading system proves undesirable. If the Government decide to use the tax as their carbon pricing policy after the transition period, the tax would be commenced, by secondary legislation laid in late 2020, from 1 January 2021.

The clause and schedule strengthen the effectiveness of the carbon emissions tax by ensuring that penalties can be issued for non-compliance and late payment and the legislation is updated to reflect developments since the tax was established in the Finance Act 2019. In line with the withdrawal agreement, the UK will remain in the EU emissions trading system, known as the EU ETS, until the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020. The UK will continue to have legally binding carbon reduction targets after leaving the EU.

As set out in the UK’s approach to the negotiation, the UK would be open to considering a link between any future UK emissions trading system and the EU ETS, if it suited both the UK’s and the EU’s interests. If a linked trading system between the UK and the EU is not agreed, the UK would introduce an alternative carbon pricing policy. The Government are therefore preparing both a UK standalone emissions trading system and a carbon emissions tax.

Budget 2020 announced that legislation would be included in this Finance Bill to provide a charging power to establish a UK ETS linked to the EU ETS or a standalone UK ETS, and update the existing legislation relating to carbon emissions tax. This schedule amends the Finance Act 2019 to ensure that the tax will be ready to be operational from the end of the transition period, if needed. The clause and schedule deal with the latter.

Clause 92 introduces schedule 11, which makes amendments to part 3 of the Finance Act 2019, which established the carbon emissions tax. Schedule 11 will amend the Finance Act 2019 so that the carbon emissions tax is ready to commence from 1 January 2021 if needed.

I will briefly highlight the most significant changes in what is a fairly technical schedule. Paragraphs 9 and 10 add provisions to the tax for a penalty for failure to make payments of tax to HMRC on time. That would be achieved by adopting the existing provisions on late payment penalties in schedule 56 to the Finance Act 2009. The penalty would be commenced by appointed day regulations if the tax were introduced.

Similarly, paragraph 4 allows for provisions to be made for the imposition of civil penalties for failure to comply with a requirement of the regulations; the review of, and a right of appeal against, a specified decision relating to the tax; and the modification of domestic and EU regulations relating to the monitoring and regulation of emissions.

Paragraph 8 amends the commencement and transitional provisions to ensure that the regulations needed to operate the tax may be made before the tax has commenced. It also removes provisions that were needed when we were planning to commence the tax partway through an emissions reporting period. Those are no longer needed, as we would now start the tax on 1 January, the first day of an emissions reporting period.

Paragraph 3 allows the Treasury, by regulations, to exclude regulated installations of a specified description from the charge to tax. That enables the Government, for example, to exclude Northern Ireland power generators from the tax, were they to continue to participate in the EU ETS as provided for in the Northern Ireland protocol. Paragraph 6 ensures that regulators will be able to recover costs incurred in doing work connected with carbon emissions tax, even if that work is done before regulations are made.

In conclusion, the clause and schedule ensure that the carbon emissions tax is ready to commence from 1 January 2021 if needed. It would provide a stable carbon price and help the UK to meet its carbon reduction commitments. I therefore commend the clause and schedule to the Committee.

Wes Streeting (Labour, Ilford North)

The clause and schedule that we are discussing make perfect sense in light of the impact of our exiting the European Union. I just have a few questions for the Minister.

This clause gives the Government the power to introduce a UK emissions trading scheme or carbon tax via a statutory instrument. As we have already heard from the Minister, and as we have heard from public statements on both sides of the channel this week, we will leave the EU emissions trading scheme on December 31 2020, when we leave the transition period.

I think the Minister alluded to the fact that so many of the questions that stakeholders have remain unanswered. I accept that this is just an enabling clause in anticipation of the further detail, and I appreciate that some of these questions may relate to responsibilities in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, so I will accept it if she sends me in that direction, but does she know when the Government plan to respond to chapters 1 to 3 of the consultation on the future of UK carbon pricing? Can she give assurances that there will be time to scrutinise Government proposals and implement a new scheme by the end of the year, bearing in mind that the proposals will have an impact on a wide range of organisations?

Touching on a theme I raised this morning about support for businesses as they undertake a transition to new frameworks, how do the Government intend to support UK companies during the transition, bearing in mind that, just as we are feeling the impact on Government business of disruption caused by the pandemic, many businesses are feeling exactly the same disruption? Is it realistic or desirable for companies across the country to be adapting to a new scheme that is not yet known and that may need to take force by the end of this year?

Kemi Badenoch (Conservative, Saffron Walden)

We published a consultation response on 1 June, and the carbon emissions tax consultation is due to be published shortly. I will say to the hon. Gentleman, “Watch this space.”

In terms of the impact on businesses, the carbon emissions tax would have an impact on around 1,000 installations that currently participate in the EU emissions trading system, most of which are operated by large businesses. Businesses whose emissions exceeded their allowance would need to familiarise themselves with the tax and pay a bill once a year, in lieu of surrendering trading allowances under the EU emissions trading system. It must be said, however, that the administrative burdens of complying with this tax are not expected to be more than what they would have been under the EU emissions trading system.

Charge for allocating allowances under emissions reduction trading scheme

Kemi Badenoch (Conservative, Saffron Walden)

The clause provides the power to auction carbon emissions allowances, to establish a UK emissions trading system, which could be linked to the EU’s or operate independently. Alongside clause 92, to update the carbon emissions tax, this clause ensures that a strong carbon price remains in all scenarios, while supporting the ongoing negotiations.

The UK’s membership of the EU emissions trading system will end following the transition period. As mentioned in the previous clause, the EU ETS covers around a third of UK emissions, including the power sector, heavy industry and aviation. It has been an important tool, alongside other taxes and regulations, in helping to reduce emissions.

Following the UK’s exit from the EU, we have choices about how best to put a price on carbon, tailoring our approach to the UK economy. Carbon pricing will continue to play an important role to help meet the UK’s legally binding carbon budgets and net zero. The Government are preparing an independent UK emissions trading scheme, which could be linked to the EU ETS. As set out in the UK’s approach to negotiations, we are open to considering a link if it suited both sides’ interests.

Clause 93 is essential to the establishment of a UK ETS, as it provides the power for Government to auction emissions allowances and intervene in the market to deal with any price volatility. As I mentioned earlier, the Government are also preparing a carbon emissions tax and a possible alternative in clause 92. Introducing legislation to support potential negotiated options, as well as legislating for alternative approaches to carbon pricing after the transition period, will provide certainty that we maintain an effective carbon price in all scenarios, continuing to drive reductions in emissions on our journey to net zero.

The changes made by clause 93 introduce a charging power. This means that through regulations, emissions allowances can be auctioned by the Government in any future UK ETS, ensuring that participants pay a price for their pollution. The clause will also enable regulations to be made for additional market stability mechanisms, to operate in an independent UK emissions trading scheme. That will ensure a smooth transition for businesses. First, a price rule, known as the auction reserve price, will maintain a carbon signal when allowance prices are low. Secondly, a cost containment mechanism will respond to in-year price fights, protecting the competitiveness of UK business when allowance prices are high. Further detail on these measures has been set out in the Government’s recent response to our consultation on the future of UK carbon pricing.

This clause is a prudent and sensible one to legislate for. It will pave the way for an emissions trading scheme, which could be linked to the EU ETS, if that is in our interests. It also ensures that a stand-alone emissions trading scheme could be implemented as an alternative policy, should a link not be agreed. Alongside that, legislation will be updated related to the carbon emissions tax, so we are keeping all options on the table for maintaining a carbon price signal from 1 January 2021.

Wes Streeting (Labour, Ilford North)

The Minister asked us to watch this space. We will certainly do that and wait to see how discussions progress. We look forward to seeing the details of future arrangements in the not-too-distant future.

International trade disputes

Alison Thewliss (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Central)

I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 94, page 76, line 33, at end insert—

“(2) The Government must lay before the House of Commons by 9 September 2020 a statement of the conditions under which it would consider it appropriate to vary rates of import duty under this Section.”

This amendment would require the Government to state the conditions under which it would consider it appropriate to vary rates of import duty in an international trade dispute.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 15, in clause 94, page 76, line 33, at end insert—

“(2) No regulations under this section may be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.”

This amendment would require the Government to seek the approval of the House before making regulations varying rates of import duty in an international trade dispute.

Amendment 16, in clause 94, page 76, line 33, at end insert—

“(2) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, no later than a month before any exercise of the power in subsection (1), lay before the House of Commons a report containing the following—

(a) an assessment of the fiscal and economic effects of the exercise of the powers in subsection (1);

(b) a comparison of those fiscal and economic effects with the effects of the UK being within the EU Customs Union;

(c) an assessment any differences in the exercise of those powers in respect of—

(i) England,

(ii) Scotland,

(iii) Wales, and

(iv) Northern Ireland; and

(d) an assessment of any differential effects in relation to the matters specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) between—

(i) England,

(ii) Scotland,

(iii) Wales, and

(iv) Northern Ireland.”

This would require a review of the economic and fiscal impact of the use of the powers in section 94 including comparing those effects with EU Customs Union membership.

Clause stand part.

Alison Thewliss (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Central)

This is a small clause in the Bill, but hidden within it is the Government’s intention to set the conditions under which they would consider it appropriate to vary the rates of import duty in an international trade dispute. With amendments 14 to 16, we seek to amend clause 94 because we are concerned that it gives the Government a huge amount of additional power, with which they will avoid scrutiny. The explanatory notes state that the clause

“replaces the requirement for ‘authorisation’ with a requirement to have regard to international obligations.”

The Government need to explain why they feel they need the additional power, what the safeguards to it will be and why they think it is appropriate at this time.

Trade wars are damaging and should be very much a last resort. If the Government intend to take such actions, they deserve the scrutiny of the House. It should not just be about what the Secretary of State deems to be appropriate. I remind Members of the dispute affecting the Scotch whisky industry in Scotland, which is facing a 25% tariff because of US actions regarding Airbus and Boeing. Disputes have spillover effects that affect other parts of the economy, so we need a good understanding of why the Government are seeking these powers.

Amendment 14 would force the Government, by 9 September 2020, to set out the conditions under which they would breach international law to engage in a trade war. If none exist, they can surely remove the clause from the Bill. If there are conditions under which they would jeopardise our economic prosperity, the House deserves to know. Amendment 15 would require Commons approval before Ministers could follow such an irresponsible course of action. Brexit campaigners said they wanted to restore parliamentary sovereignty. If that is the case, the Government should accept that Parliament must have a say in such important matters.

Amendment 16 would force UK Ministers, no later than a month before any exercise of power, to make an economic assessment of the implications of the power and compare it with the economic health that the UK would be enjoying within the EU customs union. Ensuring that the public are informed of the impact of such an act of economic vandalism should not be controversial. We were promised a veritable land of milk and honey during the EU referendum campaign, so we certainly deserve to see the truth about these kinds of actions. The Government must explain why they think it is important to remove that authorisation and allow the Secretary of State to do what they want without the check and balance of this House.

Bridget Phillipson (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South)

The Opposition have considerable sympathy with the hon. Lady’s arguments and the amendments tabled by the SNP. We have many concerns about clause 94, which seems buried, given that it is of such considerable importance for the years ahead.

The change to the language in section 15 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 has worrying implications for the Government’s adherence to the World Trade Organisation’s dispute settlement system. Replacing the requirement for authorisation under international law with the more nebulous consideration of appropriateness is extremely concerning, and implies that the Government may seek to sidestep international law regarding trade disputes. The matters set out in section 28 of the 2018 Act already give the Government considerable flexibility over what they consider to be appropriate action in the light of international law. It is effectively up to the Secretary of State to decide which international agreements are relevant to the exercise of the function. Loosening up the language even further in this clause is thus highly questionable.

The proposed changes seemingly downgrade the Secretary of State’s responsibilities when it comes to their international obligations. Having regard is nowhere near as onerous as having authorisation. That would allow the Secretary of State to operate at a much lower standard of requirement, and move away from recognised EU standards. We therefore seek to understand the reasoning behind the change. What is wrong with the current provisions regarding the variation of import duties in trade disputes?

There are further questions to which we seek answers from the Government. What will they use the clause for? It does not detail what kind of dispute is in question. How might the Trade Remedies Authority be involved in the decision-making process? Could this be an upshot of the digital services tax? The US has already found similar measures by France to be trade-restrictive, leaving the office of the United States trade representative to authorise retaliatory tariffs, as we discussed last week in Committee with reference to the digital services tax. While both parties are in the process of reaching a deal over the matter, it is possible that the Government wish to introduce this clause in preparation for a similar confrontation with the US. I hope the Minister can assure us that that is not the case, but why do the Government wish to reduce their responsibilities in adhering to international law?

The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central and her colleagues go some way towards responding to that. The production of a report by the Chancellor no later than a month before any exercise of the power regarding the economic impact of such an action might enable Parliament to better scrutinise the actions taken through the clause. As it stands, other than through the scrutiny of primary legislation, Parliament has little say over international trade. I welcome the amendment to seek approval of any regulations deriving from the clause by resolution of the House of Commons, in the spirit of parliamentary scrutiny. However, the Government hold a considerable majority, and therefore I question how far the amendment would go in practice towards ensuring that the Government act in accordance with international law.

I welcome the amendment regarding the requirement for the Government to detail the conditions under which they would consider it appropriate to vary the rates of import duty under the clause. However, I believe that the implications of the wider clause are of significance and that the Government ought to provide these details during debate, rather than by September, although we are sympathetic to the intention behind the amendment. I stress that I would like the Minister, when he responds to the hon. Lady’s concerns, to explain the reasoning behind this change, what kinds of disputes the clause would cover, and whether the Trade Remedies Authority will be involved.

If the changes in the clause are in anticipation of a dispute with the US over the digital services tax, does this not involve giving the Government permission to ignore international trade rules when disputes arise, undermining the authority of the WTO in the process? I hope that the Minister will provide assurances on the issue of appropriateness and respond to the concerns that the hon. Lady and I have, because this is a significant change. We have reservations about the measure that the Government are putting forward, and we would like to understand much more about their intentions.

Jesse Norman (Conservative, Hereford and South Herefordshire)

I thank hon. Members for their comments, and pay tribute to my colleague the Exchequer Secretary for rattling through the clauses we debated earlier with such effectiveness. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central has raised important questions, which I want to address properly, so I will give this issue quite a considerable amount of discussion because it is an important aspect of the Bill.

Clause 94 makes a change to the criteria in section 15 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 to ensure that the UK can vary the amount of import duty in the context of an international trade dispute. Provisions in various international trade agreements allow for the UK to vary the amount of import duty applied to goods in the context of an international trade dispute. There is existing provision in section 15 of the 2018 Act that gives the Secretary of State the power to

“make regulations varying the amount of import duty”

where

“a dispute or other issue has arisen between Her Majesty’s government…and the government of a country or territory”.

Currently, section 15 of the 2018 Act is worded in a way that could be interpreted to mean that a binding ruling of the World Trade Organisation is needed before the UK can impose a duty, which would be restrictive. In certain circumstances, countries are within their WTO rights to impose additional tariffs quickly in relation to the actions of other WTO members and, where necessary, outside of WTO dispute proceedings.

In addition, since section 15 of the 2018 Act was enacted, there have been developments in the wider sphere of trade policy, including increasing trade protectionism and problems with the WTO dispute settlement system. The WTO appellate body has stopped functioning, and it has now become possible for final and binding resolution of a WTO dispute to be blocked by a party to the dispute by appealing a panel report. That means it may not be possible to apply retaliatory duties, even where a panel report has found in the complaining body’s favour and the respondent has failed to bring itself into compliance.

Against this background, it is essential to ensure that the UK has the appropriate tools to respond to any unilateral measure or action taken by a WTO member that is not compatible with its obligations to the UK and that harms UK interests. Clause 94 therefore amends the original provision to ensure that, after having regard to relevant international arrangements, the Government may deal with such an issue by varying the amount of import duty. The EU is seeking similar powers, it should be noted, through amendments to its enforcement regulation, because it too recognises the importance of being able to respond quickly in the event of illegal measures being taken against it. What we are talking about is therefore in parallel to a process seeking similar powers within the EU.

At present, section 15 of the 2018 Act permits variation of import duty only where the UK is authorised under international law to deal with the issue. Clause 94 will amend section 15 to allow the Government to vary import duty where they consider it appropriate, having regard to relevant matters, including the UK’s international obligations, as set out in section 28 of the 2018 Act. That amendment will allow the UK to respond more effectively to developments in the international trading system, in line with international laws and our rights as an independent WTO member.

To come to the question asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, there are a number of situations in which it would be appropriate to vary rates of import duty. The most likely situation is that in which the UK has successfully challenged another WTO member’s measures in the WTO dispute settlement system, and the other member has failed to bring itself into compliance. The UK could then impose retaliatory measures, including higher import duty against the other member. That is not contrary to and does not undermine the international rule of law; it insists on the international rule of law, in the face of measures that could disable it.

Import duty variations might also be imposed following a dispute brought under a free trade agreement or in the context of a WTO member applying a safeguard measure but failing to agree an adequate level of trade compensation for the adverse effects caused by the measure. It is also possible that the UK could lose a dispute under a free trade agreement and could agree compensation with another country. The compensation could take the form of lower import duty on certain goods.

In each of those circumstances, the Government are still required by the 2018 Act to have regard to our international arrangements that are relevant to the exercise of this power. It need hardly be said that the UK strongly supports the rules-based international trading system and appropriate enforcement of WTO agreements. It is because appropriate enforcement would be otherwise lacking that this clause is being brought into effect.

Amendment 14 would require the Government to state the conditions in which they would consider it appropriate to vary rates of import duty. As you will know, Ms McDonagh, international trade disputes are broad and varied, depending on the nature of the international agreement under which they are conducted and on the subject matter of the dispute. It would limit the Government’s ability to respond effectively in a particular dispute if they were required to list in advance conditions for varying import duty in a dispute. I have already set out several situations in which it would be appropriate to vary rates of import duty. Examples have also been provided in the explanatory notes to both the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 and the Finance Bill.

Amendment 15 would require the Government to seek the approval of the House of Commons before making regulations varying rates of import duty in an international trade dispute. It is important to say that clause 94 is not an unchecked power. Any specific tariff measure introduced under section 15 of the 2018 Act would require secondary legislation, as is prescribed in that Act. The requirements set out in amendment 15 are therefore not necessary. Secondary legislation will involve the public passage of a piece of legislation. The Government need flexibility to respond effectively to state-to-state disputes, but with the understanding that they must have regard to the international arrangements to which the UK is party.

Amendment 16 would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lay before the House of Commons a report containing an assessment of the economic and fiscal effects of the exercise of the powers in clause 94, including a comparison of those fiscal and economic impacts with the effect of the UK being within the EU customs union, and an assessment of any differences in the exercise or effects of those powers in respect of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Information on the expected impacts of import duty variations will be provided in the documentation accompanying any and each statutory instrument. However, it would not be appropriate to publish extensive detail, because doing so could undermine the effectiveness of the UK’s response. It would also not be appropriate to compare the economic and fiscal impact of the use of the powers in clause 94 with EU customs union membership. First, the EU may not itself have a dispute with the WTO member against which the UK has brought an action. Secondly, even if the EU were applying retaliatory measures against that WTO member, the EU’s retaliatory tariffs would be based on the impact on the EU27 and would not take into account impacts on UK industries and sectors. The amendment would therefore invite the Governments and others to compare apples with oranges.

Amendment 16 would place a reporting requirement on the Chancellor; however, it is the Secretary of State for International Trade who will utilise the power to make regulations varying tariffs in order to deal with a trade dispute or other issue, as is stipulated in section 15 of the 2018 Act. It would not be appropriate to require the Chancellor to lay a report when it is the Secretary of State who is responsible for making the regulations.

Clause 94 makes an amendment to section 15 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 that is needed to ensure that the UK can respond to developments in the international system, in line with international laws and the UK’s rights as a WTO member. To be clear, this measure does not impose any new import duties. Changes to import duties would require secondary legislation. It is needed because of the evolution in the trade and policy context that I have described, and it is designed to uphold our rights and the proper exercise of what amounts to international law in a context where the existing mechanisms are not functioning adequately. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee, and ask that it rejects amendments 14, 15 and 16.

Alison Thewliss (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Central)

Although the Minister spoke for a long time, he did not get to the nub of why the clause is necessary, what safeguards are in place, and why the requirement for authorisation is replaced with a requirement to have regard to international obligations. I will press my amendment to a vote.

HMRC debts: priority on insolvency

Alison Thewliss (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Central)

I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 95, page 77, line 5, after “tax” insert

“which is due at the relevant date from the debtor and which became due in the 12 months immediately preceding that date, and/”.

This amendment seeks to limit the extent of HMRC’s status as a preferential creditor in insolvencies by preventing the policy from being applied retrospectively and by limiting that preference to only those taxes which became due in the 12 months before the relevant date as given in the Bill (1st December 2020).

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 18, in clause 95, page 77, line 6, after “deduction”, insert

“from a payment made by the debtor in the period of 12 months immediately preceding the relevant date.”

This amendment seeks to limit the extent of HMRC’s status as a preferential creditor in insolvencies by preventing the policy from being applied retrospectively and by limiting that preference to only those taxes which became due in the 12 months before the relevant date as given in the Bill (1st December 2020).

Amendment 19, in clause 95, page 77, line 29, after “tax”, insert

“which is due at the relevant date from the debtor and which became due in the 12 months immediately preceding that date, and/”.

This amendment seeks to limit the extent of HMRC’s status as a preferential creditor in insolvencies by preventing the policy from being applied retrospectively and by limiting that preference to only those taxes which became due in the 12 months before the relevant date as given in the Bill (1st December 2020).

Amendment 20, in clause 95, page 77, line 30, after “deduction”, insert

“from a payment made by the debtor in the period of 12 months immediately preceding the relevant date.”

This amendment seeks to limit the extent of HMRC’s status as a preferential creditor in insolvencies by preventing the policy from being applied retrospectively and by limiting that preference to only those taxes which became due in the 12 months before the relevant date as given in the Bill (1st December 2020).

Amendment 21, in clause 95, page 78, line 9, after “tax”, insert

“which is due at the relevant date from the debtor and which became due in the 12 months immediately preceding that date, and/”.

This amendment seeks to limit the extent of HMRC’s status as a preferential creditor in insolvencies by preventing the policy from being applied retrospectively and by limiting that preference to only those taxes which became due in the 12 months before the relevant date as given in the Bill (1st December 2020).

Amendment 22, in clause 95, page 78, line 10, after “deduction”, insert

“from a payment made by the debtor in the period of 12 months immediately preceding the relevant date.”

This amendment seeks to limit the extent of HMRC’s status as a preferential creditor in insolvencies by preventing the policy from being applied retrospectively and by limiting that preference to only those taxes which became due in the 12 months before the relevant date as given in the Bill (1st December 2020).

Amendment 23, in clause 95, page 78, line 26, at end insert—

“(8) The amendments made by this section do not apply to any debt secured by a floating charge in respect of monies were advanced to the debtor before 1 December 2020.”

These amendments seek to limit the extent of HMRC’s status as a preferential creditor in insolvencies by preventing the policy from being applied retrospectively and by limiting that preference to only those taxes which became due in the 12 months before the relevant date as given in the Bill (1st December 2020).

Clause stand part.

Clause 96 stand part.

Alison Thewliss (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Central)

The amendments seek to limit the extent of HMRC’s status as a preferential creditor in insolvencies by preventing the policy being applied retrospectively, and by limiting that preference only to taxes that became due in the 12 months before the relevant date as given in the Bill, which is 1 December 2020. In the current context, that is particularly important. With firms increasingly running the risk of insolvency, it really is unfair to give HMRC a queue jump to recoup lost funds, when other businesses and individuals in the real economy may be well out of pocket.

The plan is to grant HMRC preferential status in insolvency proceedings from December 2020, and measures will make directors personally liable for a company’s tax liabilities where HMRC considers that avoidance or evasion is taking place or where there is evidence of phoenixes in the tax abuse using company insolvencies. I understand that the insolvency and restructuring trade body R3 is very concerned about the prospect of the policy. It feels very strongly that introducing such a policy would damage business lending and impede business rescue. UK Finance has suggested that the measure could hit lending to small firms by over £1 billion.

When I made representations in the Chamber on Second Reading, I explained that the policy is incredibly problematic. On the issue of phoenixism, R3 has suggested that the policy could lead to blameless shareholders, lenders, businesses and rescue professionals being made liable for the tax avoidance activities of rogue directors. What do Ministers intend to do to protect those who are innocent in the system from becoming liable under the proposals?

As well as having a detrimental impact on business and economic growth, restricted lending will make it harder to rescue businesses, increasing the knock-on effect of one business’s insolvency on other businesses and individuals further down the line. Business investment, returns to creditors and confidence in the UK’s corporate framework all stand to be damaged as a result. Ministers really need to give us a bit more detail about why they feel the policy is necessary.

Although the measure on tax abuse using company insolvencies can be mitigated through accurate legislative drafting and detailed guidance from HMRC, the SNP feels strongly that the policy to grant HMRC preferential creditor status should be withdrawn in its entirety. It is an introduction that could well prove a hammer blow to business rescue money across the UK, at exactly the same time as the Government are seeking to level up the economy and support businesses as they try to make their way through these difficult days. We all know of businesses in our constituencies that are really struggling and might not make it further than a couple of months ahead. Knowing that the policy is being introduced could have a detrimental effect on those who are supporting such businesses and on lenders.

In addition to scrapping the clause, the SNP believes that the UK Government must urgently introduce a comprehensive financial package to ensure a strong economic recovery, protect jobs and prevent new businesses from going under. With dire warnings emerging that up to half the loans issued under the bounce-back loan scheme are at risk of not being paid back, and with businesses defaulting on payments due to financial difficulties, it is vital that the Government introduce strengthened and tailored financial support urgently. The Treasury must heed the calls and turn its bounce-back loan scheme into grants for those who require them. It should write off debts for businesses that are facing increased hardship to ensure that they can survive in the long term and that jobs are protected wherever possible.

Many businesses are struggling to stay afloat during these challenging times, and despite the extensive financial support that has been provided by the Government, which we do not dispute, loans will not be the answer for every business. For many businesses, it is not income deferred, but income lost completely. For example, hospitality and tourism businesses will not be able to recoup that money, and loans will just put them further into debt.

It is important that the Government look at this matter very carefully and take on board the very substantial concerns that R3 has raised about the proposed policy, hence why we have tabled so many amendments. I would be grateful if the ministerial team could tell us exactly why this change is required and why it has been brought about.

Wes Streeting (Labour, Ilford North)

I must confess that I come to this clause with a slightly different set of questions for Ministers to respond to. There is no doubt that in the current climate, the risk of insolvency to businesses is much greater, and it is right that the Government do all they can to stop preventable collapses, to safeguard jobs and to ensure that the UK is well positioned for the economic recovery that we hope will follow in short order, with the aim of making this recession as short and shallow as possible.

That is why my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the shadow Minister for business and consumers, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), were prepared to work closely with their opposite numbers in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to expedite through the House of Commons the recent Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill.

Turning to clause 95, the question I wish to pose to Ministers is why HMRC is only a secondary preferential creditor. HMRC will remain an unsecured creditor for the taxes that the bankrupt businesses owed, and we have had strong representations for HMRC to be a preferred creditor across the board, to ensure certainty and to recognise the fact that HMRC contributes, through tax collection and maintenance of general rules, to the general operating environment from which all businesses benefit.

Although we have heard that the risk exists that businesses may lose out as a result of HMRC having greater preferential status in the process of recovering money, it does not necessarily follow that the businesses that would lose out are those that most of us would have in mind as being of greatest concern, such as small to medium-sized enterprises. When a business becomes insolvent, bank loans need to be paid off first; unpaid bills to SMEs would have a much lower priority and be less likely to be paid off anyway.

I recognise the concerns expressed by UK Finance. They are concerns I heard in my previous life on the Treasury Committee, and I am always open to talking to colleagues at UK Finance and across the across the banking industry. However, they have to go somewhat further to make a more convincing case than they have outlined. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister why HMRC is only a secondary preferential creditor and why, on this occasion, the Treasury has not gone further.

To respond to the lobbying from the financial services industry, I would say that it was ever thus—when measures like are brought forward, it says that the sky will fall in and business lending will stop. There are challenges with business lending in this country, but it is stretching the imagination somewhat to say that such challenges will be presented by this modest clause.

Anthony Browne (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

As somebody who used to run the British Bankers Association, which turned into UK Finance, I was very involved in some of those earlier lobbying efforts. I must say that in this case, I simply do not believe it. I do not think this measure would have any impact on business lending; it is quite clear that the tax has already been paid by employers or customers, and it would have a very limited impact—virtually no impact—on the actual risk of a loan or the risk of default. I fully support the Government on this.

Jesse Norman (Conservative, Hereford and South Herefordshire)

I am grateful to colleagues for their comments. I will talk about the clauses in a moment, but I will first enjoy this moment in Committee: a senior Opposition Member of Parliament says that he is resistant to financial sector lobbying, which I am thrilled about; and on the other side, someone who headed up the lobbying organisation says that, from an inside standpoint, we are talking about irrelevant minutiae. Let us enjoy for a second that rare moment of harmony and joy in Committee.

I will outline the measure and then respond to the concerns that have been expressed. Clauses 95 and 96, as has been noted, amend the Insolvency Act 1986, the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 2016 and the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 by giving HMRC greater statutory priority in the recovery of certain tax debts in insolvency situations. The clauses apply to PAYE income tax including student loan repayments, employee national insurance contributions, construction industry scheme deductions and VAT.

Clauses 95 and 96 are interlinked and intended to work together. The clauses ensure that more of the taxes paid in good faith by employees and customers, but held temporarily by a business, go to fund public services as intended, rather than being distributed to other creditors such as financial institutions.

The changes will apply across the UK from 1 December 2020. This measure was first announced at Budget 2018. The Government then consulted on implementation and published a response to that consultation exercise in July 2019, along with draft Finance Bill legislation for technical consultation.

The Government’s aim is to support companies and to help them to avoid insolvency, especially at this challenging time, and the measures recently announced to restructure the UK’s insolvency framework support that. This legislation will not impede those restructuring plans. It focuses solely on the recovery of certain tax debts after a business becomes insolvent, and it has no detrimental impact on the measures that the Government have taken to support business in the light of the challenges posed by the coronavirus.

I will briefly explain the context for the changes introduced by the clauses. Estimated tax losses were £4.5 billion in 2018-19. That is when a taxpayer and HMRC have agreed the amount of tax that is due, but the tax is never paid. Centrally, in this case, a business could become insolvent after the tax becomes due but before it is paid to HMRC.

It is important that I explain the order of distribution as it currently operates in an insolvency. When a company becomes insolvent, the order of distribution for assets from that company—the order in which creditors recover their debts—is set out in legislation. First in the queue, typically, are banks that have charges over fixed assets, such as buildings, followed inevitably by the fees for the insolvency practitioners who administer the insolvency process.

Next come preferential creditors, such as employees who are entitled to wages in arrears, followed by secured creditors with floating charges. Those creditors hold floating charges against liquid, less secure assets, such as stock and machinery. Those charges are often held by banks and other lenders. Claims from unsecured creditors, including suppliers and customers, have the lowest priority. Typically, they recover nothing at all, in the majority of insolvencies certainly.

HMRC is an unsecured creditor for all tax debts—that is, it is last in the queue—but, as a result of the clauses we are debating, it will become a secondary preferential creditor for the taxes I have mentioned from 1 December 2020. The reforms therefore do not place HMRC at the top of the creditor hierarchy. Preferential creditors, such as employees entitled to their wages, will continue to come first.

The reform represents a fair and proportionate position, balancing the needs of the Exchequer, taxpayers and other creditors alike. As I have mentioned, the reforms apply only to taxes that have been deducted from employees’ salaries—this question was asked—or paid by customers. It is a tax that those employees and customers consider to have been paid successfully. Many will assume, and rightly expect, that the money will be passed to the Government to fund important public services.

The measure will increase the amount of tax debt that HMRC recovers through insolvency, and it will ensure that up to an additional £220 million is available for public services each year, while not adversely affecting the wider economy. The impact on the economy overall is expected to be negligible and, although there may be modest impacts on some forms of commercial lending, those impacts are expected to be small.

The changes made by the clauses will reduce losses to the Exchequer when companies and individuals become insolvent, ensuring a greater recovery of outstanding PAYE income tax, employee national insurance contributions, construction industry scheme deductions and VAT debts. Those tax regimes are included because they represent, as I have said, a proportionate approach.

The tax debts included will be secondary preferential claims and will sit below the fixed charges held by banks, other lenders and, as I have outlined, the fees owed to insolvency practitioners. HMRC will move ahead of some other less secure creditors for those tax debts, but the other tax debts that are levied directly on businesses, such as corporation tax, will remain unsecured claims; that relates to the question asked by the hon. Member for Ilford North. When most people pay their taxes, they expect them to be used to fund public services, and they would be shocked to discover that when an employer or business goes insolvent, the deductions of PAYE income tax from an employee’s wages and the VAT that a customer paid on their goods end up in the pockets of creditors ahead of the public purse.

Amendments 17 to 23 seek to limit the extent of HMRC’s status as a preferential creditor in insolvencies by preventing the policy from being applied retrospectively. Furthermore, the amendments seek to limit preference to those taxes that became due in the 12 months before 1 December 2020. We believe that the reforms being made by the clause have a strong and principled rationale to ensure that more of the taxes paid in good faith by employees and customers go to pay for public services.

The tax debts are not an income for business, and they are not taxes that the businesses themselves pay, but merely taxes that those businesses hold temporarily before, in a normal case, passing them on to the Government. They are not income for businesses, and should not be treated as such. The timing of the business’s accumulation of debts should not be a consideration. As I have said, the measure represents a proportionate approach.

I turn to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, who is concerned about pushing businesses into insolvency. It is important to be aware that the reforms will apply to insolvencies only from 1 December 2020, as announced in the Budget. The reform is not expected to have a significant impact on access to finance or, indeed, a significant marginal impact on pushing businesses into insolvency. Let it be remembered that the package of support that the Government have announced for businesses and individuals to protect against the current economic emergency includes £330 billion of guaranteed loans, which is equivalent to 15% of GDP.

To respond to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, the reforms will not have an effect of any significance on financial institutions, the lending market or the wider economy. After all, we are talking about a measure that is forecast to raise £220 million, when bank lending to small and medium-sized businesses alone in 2019 was £57 billion—a massively different order of magnitude. We do not believe that the reforms will have the negative effects that the hon. Member for Glasgow Central outlines.

The hon. Lady asked whether the reforms might somehow affect blameless shareholders. It is important to say that we do not expect that to happen. No one can be issued with a notice—this is really a clause 97 issue, but we have come to it now—unless their connection to the company is significant. Where a person may potentially fall into the regime through connection to repeated insolvencies, HMRC will not issue a notice if it is satisfied that the person acted in good faith and had no material impact on the company’s affairs.

That being the case, the Government believe that the measures represent a balanced position, protecting taxes that are held by businesses but have been paid by employees and consumers. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.

Alison Thewliss (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Central)

From what the Opposition Front-Bench team said, I do not think that I have support for the amendment, so I am content to withdraw it, but I may return to the subject later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Joint and several liability of company directors etc

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss, That schedule 12 be the Twelfth schedule to the Bill.

Jesse Norman (Conservative, Hereford and South Herefordshire)

Clause 97 and schedule 12 introduce a new power to allow HMRC to tackle the behaviour of tax avoiders and evaders who seek to reduce their tax bill unfairly through the misuse of company insolvency. This measure tackles the small minority of people who use insolvency intentionally to sidestep tax liabilities. It does so by allowing HMRC to issue notices that make directors and other persons connected to the company jointly and severally liable for the company’s avoidance, evasion or phoenixism debts, as they are described, if insolvency is threatened. It is not linked to clauses 95 and 96, which make HMRC a secondary preferential creditor for certain tax debts.

The Government announced our intention to consult on tax abuse and insolvency at Budget 2017. The consultation ran from April to June in 2018, and the Government published a response document in November 2018. The Government also published draft finance Bill legislation for technical consultation in July 2019.

As I made clear when I discussed earlier clauses, it is the Government’s aim to support companies and help them to avoid insolvency, particularly at this very difficult and challenging time, and the measures recently announced to restructure the UK’s insolvency framework support this aim. This legislation will not impede those restructuring plans, and the measure focuses firmly on those who misuse insolvency in connection with tax avoidance or evasion, or who run up repeated liabilities that they then step away from.

In ordinary times, insolvency is a highly unfortunate but necessary part of commercial life. However, a small minority of people misuse insolvency for their own ends. They hide behind a company to engage in tax avoidance or evasion, or repeatedly build up tax debts, and then strip out the assets, liquidate the company and leave nothing to meet outstanding tax liabilities. Not only does this deprive the Exchequer of funds for important public services, but it undermines the insolvency process and adversely affects creditors and other businesses, and it casts the whole reputation of insolvency into disrepute. It is only right that we should act to discourage such misuse, and that is what this measure is designed to do.

Clause 97 introduces schedule 12, which contains details of the new regime and sets out conditions that must be met before the legislation will apply. First, paragraph 2 sets out the conditions that must apply before HMRC can issue a notice to an individual connected to a company that has engaged in tax avoidance or evasion. The conditions are: that the company has begun an insolvency procedure, or there is a serious risk that it will; and that the person was responsible for, facilitated or knowingly benefited from the avoidance or evasion.

Paragraph 3 sets out the conditions that must apply before HMRC can issue a notice to an individual who is connected to companies that repeatedly go insolvent with significant outstanding debts. Such companies are often referred to as phoenix companies, and it is widely agreed across the House that they are a blight on commercial life. The conditions are: that the person must have had a connection in the previous five years to at least two companies that began insolvency; that the person has a connection to a new company that carries out the same trade as the old ones; and that the amounts due to HMRC from the old companies total at least £10,000 and at least 50% of the amount due to unsecured creditors overall. That is an important safeguard to ensure that the measure focuses on catching those who play fast and loose with their tax. Paragraph 4 allows the amounts to be varied by a statutory instrument.

Turnaround specialists try to rescue companies that are in financial difficulty. Obviously, they cannot always be successful, so HMRC will not issue notices to those whose connection to a company is part of a genuine attempt to save the business. The third area that the legislation tackles is set out in paragraph 5, which deals with cases where companies have been issued with penalties for facilitating tax avoidance or evasion, and it sets out the conditions that must apply. Paragraph 9 ensures that a person is not exposed to a double liability for penalties transferred from a company, and paragraph 10 ensures that a notice must be withdrawn if it is no longer needed: for example, because the threat of insolvency has passed.

Paragraphs 11 to 16 deal with rights of appeal against notices and the right to join or take over a company’s appeal. Those are powerful safeguards intended to ensure that all taxpayers continue to be treated fairly by the tax system, and the new powers apply only in strictly narrow circumstances. Paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 19 provide some definitions. Paragraph 17 ensures the measure continues to work where companies have ceased to exist, and paragraph 18 brings in limited liability partnerships.

The insolvency process is an important part of our commercial life and an important part of the process of encouraging investment in British business. A small but persistent minority take advantage of the rules to sidestep their tax responsibilities, seeking to keep the benefits of their avoidance or evasion while denying funds needed for public services. That is bad for the Exchequer, bad for business, bad for consumers and bad for other creditors. It is bad for society. Limited liability is an important part of our legal system, but that protection, intended to benefit honest businesses, should not extend to those who misuse the system to avoid their tax obligations. The Government are clear that everyone must pay the tax that is legally due, no matter who they are. It is therefore only right that we tackle such misuse. For that reason, I commend the clause and schedule to the Committee.

Wes Streeting (Labour, Ilford North)

It is always the case that when a new measure is introduced, criticism can be made of it simply because it had not existed previously. In this case, it really is a reflection of the Treasury’s failure to clamp down effectively on the abuse of the system and the people trying to avoid and evade their taxes. Despite the Government’s previous efforts to impose greater accountability for tax avoidance and evasion, there are still too many holes in the system, but I welcome the fact that clause 97 and the schedule will go some way to addressing that.

What is the threshold of responsibility for the conduct? When will HMRC consider the serious possibility that the tax liability might not be paid? At what stage will HMRC conclude that there is likely to be a tax liability arising from the avoidance? Might the Treasury go further, for example, by asking HMRC to report on how much money is lost by companies participating in or promoting tax avoidance schemes and then becoming insolvent before HMRC can counter the schemes and collect the money owed? Following on from that, how much money would be collected if those companies’ directors, participators and associated persons were made jointly and severally liable?

Alison Thewliss (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Central)

I want to comment briefly on the huge gap that exists within Companies House as part of this process. If we go after companies and directors that are involved in phoenixing, why can that not be stopped at source when those companies are registered at Companies House? Why is there no link to the Government’s Verify scheme for those who wish to register companies there? Companies House is obliged only to register the information, not to check whether any of the information is accurate, correct or related to any other kind of activity. It is not involved in anti-money laundering obligations, but it really should be. Will the Minister look carefully at the question of Companies House? That could be a key part of preventing phoenixing in the first place. For example, I have a friend who employed a builder to do work on his house for his disabled son. The builder went bust and phoenixed, as he has done on several occasions. My friend is out of pocket, and that company continues to trade. It is employing sub-contractors who lost out last time because there is nobody else to hire them in that small community. There needs to be a stop on those types of people and behaviours, and I urge the Minister to consider ensuring that Companies House is a big part of that.

Jesse Norman (Conservative, Hereford and South Herefordshire)

I thank both hon. Members for their comments. I draw from them strong support for the clause, although it was caveated in the way they described. Let me address the issues that they raised.

The hon. Member for Ilford North asked, “Why not do this earlier?” There is a long-standing principle in company law that the corporate veil should not be pierced, and limited liability should exist in place. As he will recall, there was a moment not so long ago when HMRC had Crown preference and was always the first, or close to the first, creditor to get paid out. It then got moved to the back of the queue.

As we think about the current insolvency and abuse regime, there has been a process of further reflection on all the different aspects of it, and that inevitably includes the phenomenon that we have seen. My impression—I do not know whether it is true—is that phoenixism is a better recognised phenomenon and a more widely understood problem than it has been. This is part of a much wider effort that has been made—particularly since I have been Financial Secretary to the Treasury, but before that, too—to really push on the issue of avoidance and evasion, and that is what we are doing.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about process. It is a perfectly good, important question, and I have been through it myself with HMRC officials. I will not read out the conditions in each case, but there are central cases for the issuance of avoidance and evasion notices, avoidance and evasion facilitation notices, and repeated insolvency notices. Each has some quite specific criteria sitting underneath it. For avoidance and evasion facilitation notices, a company must have begun an insolvency procedure or given assurance that it will; it must have incurred a penalty for facilitating tax avoidance or evasion; there must be a serious risk that some or all of that liability will not be paid; and the person must have a relevant connection to the company at the time that the behaviour leading to the penalty occurs. There are important threshold tests that must be met, and there are appeals processes against notices that have been filed, which are designed to provide safeguards, for all the reasons that one might imagine.

I have a degree of sympathy for the point that the hon. Member for Glasgow Central makes about Companies House. In the promoter strategy, which we published at the time of the Budget, we looked to create a more integrated approach to trying to crack down on abusive avoidance and evasion, and the promotion of avoidance and evasion. It has been in part about pulling together different entities, one of which might be Companies House and another of which might be the Advertising Standards Authority, if the two had been outside the purview of a more traditional approach. I take the hon. Lady’s point, and I thank both hon. Members for their support for this important clause and schedule.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

Do I take it that that was the last group?

David Rutley (Conservative, Macclesfield)

One more!

Amendments relating to the operation of the GAAR

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Jesse Norman (Conservative, Hereford and South Herefordshire)

One more clause unto the breach, dear friends; or close the wall up with our English dead, and possibly our Scottish dead as well—our British dead. We will rephrase the bard.

Clause 98 makes minor procedural and technical changes to the general anti-abuse rule referred to as the GAAR to strengthen its procedural efficiency and ensure that it operates as originally intended. The clause tackles a small minority of taxpayers who deliberately avoid, in this case, providing information and thereby frustrate HMRC’s ability to pursue inquiries into abusive tax arrangements under the GAAR.

The clause also introduces some minor amendments to remove ambiguity and to ensure that, where HMRC decides not to pursue a case using the GAAR, inquiries can continue using other arguments. This measure was announced at Budget 2018 and the Government published draft legislation for technical consultation in July 2019. The changes will help to protect over £200 million in tax revenue by ensuring that the GAAR works effectively.

As I have often said, the Government take a firm line against those who seek to avoid tax and try to circumvent the rules. The GAAR was introduced in July 2013 and it has become an important part of the Government’s strategy to clamp down on tax avoidance; to deter individuals from engaging in it in the first place; and to prevent promoters from marketing and selling such arrangements.

The GAAR focuses on tackling abusive tax avoidance. By abusive, I mean the sort of arrangements that push the boundaries of the law and are clearly not within the spirit of what Parliament intended. The GAAR legislation asks whether a specific tax arrangement is abusive and applies what is known as the “double-reasonableness” test. Tax arrangements are considered abusive if they cannot reasonably be regarded as a reasonable course of action. An independent advisory panel provides an opinion to HMRC on whether a tax arrangement constitutes a reasonable course of action.

The clause will strengthen procedural changes made to the GAAR previously in 2016 which tackle mass-marketed tax avoidance schemes. The changes in 2016 introduced provisional counter-action notices, which allowed HMRC a 12-month window to gather information and consider whether to continue a GAAR challenge or pursue a different approach.

Some taxpayers and advisers, I am sorry to say, have deliberately refused to co-operate with HMRC during that window, deliberately withholding information to prevent HMRC from making an informed decision. In effect, those people are seeking to run down the clock and it is right the Government take action to prevent this. At the moment, HMRC has no recourse against such people. Once that window closes, no further GAAR action is possible and HMRC is unable to pursue any alternative non-GAAR approaches.

The clause replaces the provisional counter-action notices introduced in 2016 with a simpler protective GAAR notice. This will enable HMRC to carry on its investigations beyond 12 months and it mirrors the way normal tax inquiry notices work. The amendments will also confirm that where HMRC decides not to pursue the GAAR, cases can still be pursued using a technical non-GAAR argument. That has always been the intention of the legislation.

The changes remove the incentive not to co-operate with requests for information and ensure that appropriate safeguards, such as appeal rights and the oversight exercised by the independent GAAR advisory panel remain in place. Given that the GAAR targets the abusive end of the avoidance spectrum, the changes proposed here will only affect a small minority—those who persistently go to extreme lengths to sidestep the rules. These changes are needed now to ensure that HMRC can take action against those who are constantly looking for new ways to avoid paying their fair share of tax.

New clause 12 in the name of the SNP requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review the impact of clause 98 and schedule 13 within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. Specifically, it would require the Chancellor to review the effect on public finances and on reducing the tax gap, particularly on taxes payable by earners and employees of Scottish limited partnerships.

In response, I highlight to hon. Members that amendments to the GAAR are minor procedural changes designed to ensure the policy operates as originally intended. The effects of these changes to the regime will not be visible within six months’ time. As with all tax measures, however, we will continue to review and monitor the effect of this change, as is standard.

HMRC already publishes the “Measuring the tax gap” report annually which shows how the tax gap has changed year on year for different forms of behaviour and different taxpayer groups. HMRC also publishes an annual report and accounts that provide specific information on the impacts of the GAAR, including the number of GAAR opinion notices issued. For that reason, I ask the Committee to reject new clause 12.

To sum up, these amendments ensure that the GAAR remains an effective tool in HMRC’s armoury for tackling abuse of tax avoidance. I therefore commend the clause and the schedule to the Committee.

Wes Streeting (Labour, Ilford North)

As the Financial Secretary outlined, this clause is designed to tweak the system. Therein lies my criticism and my concern. The challenges we face when it comes to tax avoidance and abuse have been well documented during this Committee in relation to the loan charge. Even where Government have sought to clamp down on avoidance and HMRC has put in place controversial but rigorous arrangements, there continue to be, to this day, companies and promoters that tout schemes that are patently against the spirit and letter of the law. HMRC has made it clear that such schemes do not work, but those companies and promoters are still at it.

The most recent examples I have seen are of umbrella companies targeting public sector workers in the NHS. Rather than just tweaking, Ministers should be trying to give the general anti-abuse rule more bite. For example, they could extend the general anti-abuse penalty rules to apply a 100% penalty for any tax avoidance scheme that fails the GAAR or, more likely, fails for some other reason, but would have failed the GAAR as well. They could prevent operators of avoidance schemes simply running away from their liabilities and victims, making directors, shareholders and other associated persons jointly liable for the new GAAR penalty, as I alluded to in the previous discussion.

Umbrella companies create a unique opportunity to flog tax avoidance schemes to low-paid workers. We see that exploitation taking place. We could counter that by making umbrella company directors and associated persons jointly liable for unpaid PAYE, national insurance and VAT. We should make the promoters, scheme designers and independent financial advisers jointly liable for unpaid tax and penalties from a failed scheme, with a safe harbour designed to protect people acting in good faith. For example that could be where a promoter followed specific tax advice from a regulated adviser, where factual assumptions in advice were reasonable or where advice was shared with scheme participants; the list goes on. There are reasonable exemptions, or reasonable assessments could be made, where people are acting in good faith, but we still see far too many examples of people designing or promoting schemes in the full knowledge that they will make a quick buck but will not pay the consequences.

As we have seen, the Government and HMRC are trying to clamp down. When they catch up with people who have followed advice, often in ignorance of tax rules and in the belief that they were following good, independent financial advice, the bite really hurts. Why are we not going after the scheme promoters much more aggressively? Despite all the controversy—the headlines generated off the back of the loan charge, the debates in Parliament, inquiries and grillings before the Treasury Committee—we still have not got to the heart of the issue.

In my opinion, and that of many people following our proceedings, the people who design, contrive and promote such schemes are still not paying the price for giving bad advice to their customers, who believe they are following good advice and the law. We are not going to quibble about clause 98 and the tidy up it is doing, but I am disappointed by the lack of aambition. The Treasury has to be much more aggressive with the promoters than it is currently.

Alison Thewliss (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Central)

In new clause 12, we mention the issue of Scottish limited partnerships. I make no apology for doing so, as they are still a problem. We only need to look at the ongoing campaign journalism by Richard Smith and David Leask on this issue to know that Scottish limited partnerships are being used in nefarious ways to move money and goods around the world. They have been involved in war crimes and all kinds of things. The loopholes existing in Scottish limited partnerships and Companies House must be closed by the Government. They are harming not only individuals who suffer the effects of these crimes, but Scotland’s reputation. They are called Scottish limited partnerships, but Scotland really has no part in it; they are an historic arrangement, but they are governed here.

There are still people not doing the simplest things such as registering persons of significant control. The answer to my recent parliamentary question suggested that 948 companies have still not registered a person of significant control. That is dramatically down from where it was, but it tells me that people are using other means to hide their money, rather than going through Scottish limited partnerships, and that no Government fines have been levied on the 948 companies that have not registered a person of significant control. That is money that the Government could have in their pocket. They are deciding that they do not want to pursue that for their own reasons. It really does stick in my craw that this is a continual issue: I have to raise it on the Finance Bill and the Scottish National party has to raise it in this House.

We are also concerned about the tax gap. The tweaks being made here are not really going to change that significant gap. In June 2019, HMRC published revised estimates, which put the tax gap at £35 billion for 2017-18, representing 5.6% of total tax liabilities. The Minister, no doubt, will say that the tax gap has fallen—it has—but that does not disguise the fact that it still exists, and that tax is money that could be coming into the revenues. It could be supporting businesses and individuals across the country and we could be abolishing policies such as the two-child limit, because the money would be there in the Government’s bank account. The Government could use that money rather than not collecting it. I could go into great detail, which I have here, about all the anti-avoidance mechanisms that have happened. I am sure other hon. Members are as warm as I am and would like to get some fresh air, so I will skip that in the interest of the patience of all colleagues.

We do need workable general anti-avoidance rules. They must tackle tax avoidance in all its forms. They must not exempt existing established abuse from action being taken. They must include international tax abuse within their scope. They must give the right to the tax authority to take action against tax avoidance, defined in an objective fashion capable of being numerically assessed, without the consent of the unelected authority. They must increase the burden of proof on this issue on to the taxpayer.

In 2014, the coalition Government announced the introduction of a system of follower notices and accelerated payment notices. In cases where someone is in dispute over their assessment, HMRC may issue a follower notice if this arises from the use of an avoidance scheme that is the same or similar to arrangements that HMRC has successfully challenged in court. In July 2017, HMRC reported that it issued over 75,000 such notices worth in excess of £7 billion and managed to collect nearly £4 billion. That is still a significant gap of £3 billion. HMRC must be able to collect the taxes it is due in real time instead of waiting for those judicial decisions.

With Scottish limited partnerships, the extent of the abuse of the current system is laid bare in the Global Witness report “Getting the UK’s house in order”, which highlights the deficiencies at Companies House that have been going on for many years. This needs to be dealt with soon. Reviews have been carried out, things have been talked about, but there has not really been any action. It makes no sense to me that we have such a system but do not allow it to catch the people it should be catching.

I sat on the pre-legislative Joint Committee for the Registration of Overseas Entities Bill in the last Parliament. That Bill seems to have disappeared completely. It would help to tackle some of the money laundering that goes on with property registered in the UK. People across the country, particularly in many London boroughs, see blocks of flats with nobody living in them. People could live in those flats. They are being used for money laundering and moving money about. We need to bring that Bill back and ensure those people are held to account. We should close these loopholes in the system and ensure that the tax that is due is collected for the benefit of all of us.

Jesse Norman (Conservative, Hereford and South Herefordshire)

I am grateful to colleagues for their contributions. I want to take up some of the points made by the hon. Member for Ilford North. The delicacy and agility in his ability to pivot from detailed scrutiny to a swingeing extension of tax powers, and new taxes galore, is interesting to watch, but the fertility of his invention is great, and I will read his suggestions with some care, in the record. I am grateful to him for that.

The ugly truth of the matter is that tax avoidance and, in particular, the promotion of it, is an amoebic activity that tends to flow into empty spaces and to be parasitic, if amoebas can be parasitic—I am not sure whether they can—on good activity. So, right next to where we see good or lawful and legal activity, we can see some unpleasant, nasty and abusive tax avoidance.

The hon. Gentleman is right to focus on how we see new forms emerging. It means that the battle against tax avoidance and evasion is never fully won. I hope that he will take some comfort from all the work we are doing on the promoter strategy. It is designed not merely for potential new powers, but for a different way of thinking about disrupting the economics of the supply chain. To pick up on a point that he raised about effectiveness, the GAAR can lead to a fine of 60% of the counteracted advantage. It can be pretty substantial, and it has genuine teeth.

I hope what I say in responding to the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central on Scottish limited partnerships falls within the framework of the Bill. The issue is well understood, and there is public concern about it, which is shared across the House. She will be aware that BEIS introduced some new reporting requirements for Scottish limited partnerships in June 2017. Since then, new registrations have declined sharply. Of course, there is a sump of existing partnerships and, as she will be aware, BEIS is consulting on wider reforms to prevent the criminal misuse of those partnerships but retain their core and, in many ways, effective and important other purpose. It announced reforms in that area as of December 2018, and the Government have made clear that they will legislate when parliamentary time admits. So although the matter does not, in its preponderance, fall directly within the clause, she is right to raise it and the Government are fully sighted in that regard, and fully seized of it.

Written evidence reported to the House