26/04/2017 House of Lords

That is the end of the day in the House of Commons. We will now go

over live to the House of Lords. You can watch recorded coverage of all

of the day's business after the daily politics later tonight. They

plan to proceed in due course if returned with the proposals for

making tax digital to slightly worry me. I think everyone would agree

that making tax digital for businesses is a good idea, but the

Treasury committee in the Other Place under the leadership, and your

lordship's economic affairs committee, have both made rather

serious criticisms of some of the details of the proposal, and they

are very big proposals. If the 780 pages had been in front of us today,

we would have been debating a proposal that 2.5 million

self-employed people, 1.5 million companies and 1 million landlords,

even if the turnover was as low as ?10,000 a year, should be required

to go online and make their tax returns quarterly, not annually. Tax

returns every three months for all these companies, including very

small companies. Both committees have recommended ways in which,

while supporting the principle, it should be phased in and made

optional, in the case of your lordship's committee, for small

companies, in the case of the Treasury committee in the Other

Place, the proposal was this threshold should be raised in line

with the VAT threshold, which seems to be a reasonable proposal. All I

want to say to the Minister is, I hope that, back in the Treasury and

the revenue, people will not be idle in the next few weeks and months and

will take careful account of the report from the two committees, both

of which support the principle that the government is proposing to

follow but both of which find very serious for the with some of the

details of implementation and particularly facing. I thank the

Minister for describing so fully the remaining sections of the Finance

Bill, which are to be considered today. We all recognise the

constraint in terms of the general election. He will anticipate that,

as what is before us is a position in the procedure, that there is not

too much controversy to add to this debate. We shall see, my lords, but

let me say I do appreciate the fact that she has explained accurately

what is in the measure, and of course I have no debate with those

present. I very much appreciate the contribution by my noble friend. He,

as ever, the ability both to identify the minutiae of a problem

and also to draw some general principles from it. It is a facility

I wish I had to the same degree because often I think it is

important in economic debates that we understand the full implications

of what is going on in terms of discrete pieces of legislation. I am

also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coe. He takes the

responsibility of analysing the problems regarding the controversial

tax proposals. They are controversial because, quite

clearly, a lot of people consider the fact their interests have been

taken sufficiently, if Atwell, into and both committees indicated the

view is that, in fact, the government had made a pretty poor

show of this. under a Labour government myeloid,

it will be after deep consideration of the needs, in particular the

category in which the noble Lord referred in terms of quite limited

resources meeting very substantial demands indeed. Meanwhile, the

government says in intended taxation is not necessarily coming in at the

rate they would have wished. My Lords, governments have been lucky

with budgets in recent years. We all recall the rather embarrassed

business of the pasty tax, the tax credit cats were reversed by wiser

counsels -- tax credit cuts. The government had to rethink and of

course the Chancellor in his budget proposals introduced the national

insurance contributions which turned out to be something of a fiasco. So,

all key features of recent budget have had their fair more than a fair

share of difficulty to the extent that one can wonder about how one

can trust a Conservative Chancellor these days to get the fundamentals

of the budget right. But, my Lords, it is the job of the opposition to

point out where the government has got things wrong and we will

the constraints of this prescription the constraints of this prescription

Bill that we are now considering. A gutted Bill left with parts with

that government and opposition agree should become law. The government of

course tends to avoid tough choices, whilst at the same time pursuing tax

cuts for the multinationals and the super-rich, to be paid for by the

mass of our people who have rather more limited resources. So, my

Lords, we take with more than a pinch of salt when the government

puts its proposals before us and puts its proposals before us and

suggests that they have some concept of fairness. So, the government

fails to realise additional fiscal resources even when the NHS is in

crisis. Of course, my Lords, there's not a person in this country who is

not aware of the provisions of the national health service at the

present time. The NHS has been forced to jettison its target of

people requiring people replying hip or knee operations in 18 week

period, it's just an indication of the camp to double difficulties of

the health services in. The government has shown no political

will to resolve the issue, and of course the health service has been

acting as proxy for the problems of the social care service.

Hard-pressed local authorities have not been able to sustain their

resources in social care, and of course the fundamental

responsibility for these crises rest with the government and there is

nothing in this budget that indicates that they are prepared to

face up to these issues. The government's fiscal policy shows a

ruinous performance of finances as the target period for reducing or

clearing the debt has now been -- gone from the five years originally

and then on for a further five years and now it's a further seven years

before the Chancellor can see his way to hitting the target which,

between 2010 and 2015 dominated the then Chancellor's objectives and of

course never really a recognition to the extent of them which failure was

enjoyed in that period. This is not helped by cuts by in HMRC staff. I

could not help but think when I first addresses issue -- address

this issue how the government could be serious about indicating on how

it would improve its taxation collecting capacities and in fact

had got this is a major issue on the agenda but was pursuing, of course,

it's clear ideological objective of reducing the size of the state. The

HM RC began to suffer significant cuts at that time. How could it be

that the government can be so committed to a philosophy that it

cannot recognise that cutting the efficiency of a government

department which doesn't just pay for itself, but brings in huge

resources, far in excess of the cost of that department, is surely a

nonsensical position to take? Of course the government didn't accept

the argument in 2011, they're not accepting the comment in 2017. I

haven't got the scientist out that they would not be accepting the

argument beyond -- I haven't got the slightest doubt that they won't be

accepting it beyond the election. This is not help my Lords, by the

fact that over this period of time, the government of course has

misdirected its taxation targets in any case. The work of cutting staff

and resources in these terms is just emblematic of the fact that the

government is prepared to reduce its services even when it is quite clear

that the costs borne by the community are very significant

indeed. That is true not just in our health service and social care, it

is certainly true in education, my lords. How can it be, that the

government is wasting resources on Private schools when in fact in

fact, the state system as a whole is crying out with the obvious fact

that every school is facing a reduction in the resources available

to it? So, my lord, the government has got a lot to answer to and the

government has, at times, paid lip service to the important feature of

improvement in the economy, which would be in improvement in

productivity. I welcomed of course the appointment of a minister who

specialised in productivity and rejected his departure in a very

short period of time. Too short, free him to make any real impact on

the issue and from where I can see the government has largely given up

on this matter. They talk about certain areas, but the simple fact

is under their office since 2010 we have slipped against the G7 criteria

of productivity crucially and of course we now have the largest gap

with the G7 since 1991. How does a government expect us to be

successful in our trade negotiations with other countries if our

productivity stays so low? And we are not in a successful competitive

position? If we were relatively steady, but of course Brexit has

occasioned a complete convulsion in the country prog-macro prospects

with regard to international trade. That means, my Lords, that the

government is going into this election with a great? Over whether

it's got the will and the capacity to tackle the fundamental issues of

our economy. This budget is consistent with the performance of

the government since the Conservative Party became the

dominant force in politics in 2010. Conspicuous failure to hit economic

and fiscal targets, backed up by taxation and social strategies

which, on the whole, reward those who were well off and hit hardest

the average working family and those of lower incomes. My Lords, so much

fairness. When we are seeing an ever growing inequality in society which

is prompting a response which the government will have two reckon with

in the very near future. My Lords, it's the case, as my noble friend

pointed out, that in fact, growth is the greatest failure of the

government. In fact, we have hit very low levels of growth 's ever

since they have been in power. There has been a slight improvement in the

last 18 months, but of course all forecasts show that within 2-3

years, even those low growth levels will begin to subside. My Lords, the

government can't expect the country to bear all that the public needs in

terms of resources and provision if in fact we cannot get growth in our

economy. I would be grateful for embellishing this debate to my noble

friend 's,. Because I am Trammell to a degree by that there is in

agreement about the provisions in the budget I had their hope the very

least the Minister will be obliged to respond to those points. My Lords

added like to thank my colleagues for their valuable contribution to

this select debate. In his wide-ranging speech, Lord Haskel

mentioned the point of social measures and as usual made a number

of interesting suggestions, including the point he often makes,

rightly, about the importance of digital, and on this occasion not

only referencing the workplace generally, but also the importance

of getting this right in Whitehall. On care and the NHS, to which he

referred and which is also tackled by Lord Davies of Oldham, at the

spring budget, we did of course announce an additional ?2 billion

through social care. This will help to ease pressures on the NHS by

supporting more people to be sought in hospital and into care when they

are ready. We are a the NHS needs the five-year forward view plan at

an annual funding to rise above 8 billion in line with inflation. The

government has delivered what they asked for an both counts and the NHS

funding will increase by 10 billion above inflation by 2021 and 6

billion of this will be delivered by the end of 2017. With regards to

accident and emergency, we've agreed to provide ?100 million of new

capital investment because this will help ensure patients get care as

quickly as possible by improving space for assessing patient and

providing on-site GCB facilities. -- GP facility. It is a good example of

how you can improve things with management and efficiency, which I

regard as extremely important. The global Lord, Lord Haskel, -- noble

Lord, Lord Haskel talked about business investment and growing

consumer debt. The forecast is business will invest will grow by

15% in the period to 1521 and two a sheriff GDP. Debt interest as a

proportion of income is at a record low. He also talked about

productivity. A subject that we have often debated here and at the Autumn

Statement we announced ?23 billion worth of extra investment through

the National productivity investment fund. Tackling the UK's productivity

challenge is a priority. The Chancellor mentioned it often, it

has pride of place in the pride of -- Prime Minister's industrial

strategy consultation and I do agree that it is important. The government

is taking action to invest in innovation, infrastructure of

digital, and to promote skills and indeed to improve management and to

encouragement, as my noble friend the Minister for trade, during

carriage firms to export, which always tends to be associated with

Chong productivity growth. There is work to do as has been said as

measured by output per head. This -- per

Now, on Brexit, the noble Lord asked about Brexit resourcing, the

Treasury is working with all departments to understand the work

required to prepare for a successful exit from the EU. While aggregate

spending plans for the period remain in place, I can assure the noble

Lord the Treasury is continuing to engage with departments to make sure

the right resources are allocated to the right places. I know from my own

experience that there are very high quality civil servants and external

support, both in the Treasury and the EU. The noble Lord asked about

HMRC resourcing, and the government has always ensured that HMRC has the

resources it needs. It makes sense to do so. Since 2010, we have

invested over ?1.8 million in HMRC and steps again have been taken to

improve its effectiveness and efficiency. I too was grateful to

the noble Lord for joining us to share his view in making tax digital

and for referring to the two recent Parliamentary reports. Particularly

the one that was done in this House in the Finance Bill committee which

I mentioned in my own opening remarks because I am grateful on the

work done on Treasury areas in this House, it really helps us to improve

policy formation. While there has been no change of policy, I would

entirely accept that time is needed for proper debate and scrutiny of

making tax digital provisions. The government remains committed to the

digital future of the tax system and indeed it was good to hear support

four that from the opposition benches. That was accepted in the

consultation we did but more time is needed for Parliamentary scrutiny,

and that will be made available at the earliest opportunity in the next

Parliament. My lords, I am grateful to noble colleagues for their

contributions. I think we will debate some of the wider issues in

the country where we will demonstrate we have a programme for

a stronger, more secure and more productive economy under Prime

Minister who is also determined to lead a country which works for all

people and all regions. I have outlined the benefits that the

Finance Bill, in its form, will bring in advancing our aim for a

fair and sustainable tax system. I would like to thank Treasury

officials for the high-quality support on the bill and forgetting

the bill quickly into a state in which it can be considered today. On

that basis, I invite the House to give the bill a second reading. The

question is that this bill now be read a second time. The contents

have it. I beg to move that this bill be not committed. The question

is that this Bill not be committed. The contents have it. I beg to move

that this Bill now be read a third time. The question be that this Bill

now be read a third time. The contents have it. I beg to move that

this Bill do now passed. The question is that this Bill do now

passed. The contents have it. I beg to move that the House do now

adjourned. The controversial sport of fox

hunting is the origin for a word that has become very much associated

with the sport of