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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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