Finance (No. 2) Bill

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 20th June 2023 Commons Chamber

Labour believes that if people make Britain their home, they should pay their taxes here. That patriotic point should be accepted in all parts of both sides of the political divide, but Ministers in this Government, under this Prime Minister, seem desperate to defend the non-dom loophole. We will keep pressing the Government to think again and to follow our plan to abolish non-dom status, replace it with a modern system, and use the money raised to strengthen the NHS, childcare and the economy.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that non-doms who could pay zero inheritance tax in other places around the world and need not spend money any at all in the UK will just stay here and be taxed under his plans? Or will they up sticks and go elsewhere—which they are very capable of doing—in which case we would lose the VAT and everything else that comes with non-dom spending in the UK?

[James Murray]

I would welcome a more extended debate about non-dom tax status. That might be slightly outside the remit of today’s debate, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to some very good research conducted by the London School of Economics and Warwick University on the impact of people potentially leaving the UK as a result of any changes in non-dom status. Getting rid of non-dom status would still net £3.2 billion a year according to the work done by the LSE and Warwick, which is based on HMRC data which they have looked at and which constitutes reputable evidence showing what would happen in that event. As I have said, we would replace non-dom status with a modern system like the one that operates in many other countries around the world.

Let me link the hon. Gentleman’s point to the point made earlier by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). This is about priorities. What is the priority for expenditure of £3.2 billion a year? Is it protecting non-dom tax status, or is it strengthening the NHS and childcare? That is at the heart of the question we are asking today.

As well as closing the non-dom loophole—about which I could speak at length— we will keep pressing the Government to close gaps in their approach to the windfall tax on oil and gas giants. Our new clause 8 presses them to think again about their investment allowance loopholes. We believe it is wrong for Ministers to leave billions of pounds of windfall profits for oil and gas giants on the table when some of that money should be helping to support families through the cost of living crisis.

We know, of course, that making our tax system fairer is not just a question of having the right legislation in place domestically; it is also a question of working with other countries to end the race to the bottom among large multinationals around the world. As our new clause 7 makes clear, we want the Government to remain committed to implementing the global agreement on a minimum rate of corporate tax. This landmark deal from the OECD is an important step towards ending the international race to the bottom on tax, as it calls time on large multinationals which operate in the UK but use low-tax jurisdictions overseas to avoid paying their fair share of tax. When large multinationals do that, it flies in the face of the British sense of fairness, it deprives public services in our country of much-needed funding, and it undercuts and undermines British businesses that play by the rules.

As we have made clear throughout consideration of the Bill, we are glad to see this legislation being implemented. We want to see the global agreement in place so that large multinationals pay a minimum level of 15% tax in each jurisdiction in which they operate. We have raised the need for such an international deal many times with the Government. Indeed, I first pressed Treasury Ministers on the subject more than two years ago, on 13 April 2021, during Second Reading of an earlier Finance Bill. At the time, we suspected that the Government might be dragging their feet because they wanted to keep alive the possibility of a race to the bottom in the future, but now, with Ministers having finally agreed to implement the deal—albeit in a version that they allowed to be weakened from what was originally proposed—opposition to it has galvanised those on the Tory Back Benches.

Two days ago, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) published an opinion piece in The Sunday Telegraph. The headline described the common-sense approach taken with the global minimum corporate tax rate—the approach that her colleagues on the Conservative Front Bench want to implement—as a

“radical plan for permanent worldwide socialism”.

The right hon. Member has tabled an amendment to this part of the Bill, which she said in her piece on Sunday was

designed to be helpful and easy to adopt.”

I would be interested to hear whether the Minister agrees, and how helpful she thinks the amendment is, because we believe that it is designed to undermine fatally the implementation of the landmark deal on a global minimum corporate tax rate. Efforts to scupper the implementation of the deal constitute an astonishing act of self-sabotage on our public finances. The reality is that if the UK walks away now from implementing these rules, businesses will simply be taxed by other countries which have implemented the deal. Let me reassure the Minister that if the amendment is pushed to a vote by Conservative Back Benchers, we will oppose it, so Ministers need not worry about whether they will be able to vote it down even if they lose their majority through a Back-Bench rebellion.

What on earth does this situation say about the state of the Conservatives and about the weakness of the Prime Minister? The amendment, which brazenly undermines the Government’s position, has been signed by right hon. and hon. Members who, within the last 12 months, have held the offices of Prime Minister, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Secretary of State for Levelling up, Housing and Communities, Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and a raft of other ministerial positions. What would happen to the implementation of these rules if the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) became the third Conservative Prime Minister to be forced from office in 12 months, and an MP who supports this amendment took over his role? The truth is the Conservatives have now become totally incapable of offering any certainty or stability, but that certainty and stability is what businesses and investors so desperately want so that they can play their part in growing our economy and raising living standards for people across Britain.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 29th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment. The geographical impact of policies should always be considered, but we should also ensure that the Government consider targeting sectors. Rather than having a scheme that applies to everyone with a large pension pot, let us have a targeted scheme for NHS doctors, which is something we can all agree on.

Alongside the changes to the taxation of individuals’ pensions, this Finance Bill includes measures that will affect the taxation of businesses. Disappointingly, but unsurprisingly, there is no sign of the fundamental reform of business rates once promised by the Conservatives. The Bill does, however, include changes to corporation tax and allowances. In fact, making changes to corporation tax and allowances is something the Government have become quite experienced in. Under the Conservatives, corporation tax has changed almost every year since 2010, and as the Resolution Foundation has pointed out, the introduction of the latest temporary regime for corporation tax represents the fifth major change in just two years. Businesses deserve better than this. When I meet businesses across the country, they are clear that they want stability, certainty and a long-term plan, yet after 13 years in office, this Government are incapable of providing those crucial foundations for success.

The truth is that Conservative MPs have become deeply inward-looking and riven by division, and their default when faced with difficult choices is to put party before country. No matter what they say, this means that Conservative Ministers are simply incapable of providing stability and certainty in government. We can see that reality in the policies they announce. As Paul Johnson of the IFS said in response to the latest temporary tweak to the tax regime for businesses:

“There’s no stability, no certainty, and no sense of a wider plan.”

Indeed, we can see that by looking at the Government’s decision to allow temporary full expensing for expenditure on plant and machinery. We know how important it is to get capital allowances right as the rate of corporation tax is being increased, yet, as the Office for Budget Responsibility reveals, the Government’s approach will make no difference whatever to medium-term levels of business investment. Rather than a long-term permanent change, this change is for only three years. As a result, it only brings forward investment rather than increasing its overall level.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has talked about certainty and stability, and they are qualities that I would have some sympathy with, but can he rule out, here and now on the Floor of the House, that it is not going to be Labour’s plan under any circumstances to harmonise capital gains tax with income tax?

[James Murray]

As we have said several times, we will set out our plans in our own time. But let us be clear, if the hon. Member has concerns over capital gains tax, he might want to talk to those on his own Front Bench, because they raised it in the last Finance Bill by cutting the annual exempt amount. I suggest he talks to his colleagues before he raises questions with us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

I will start with a depressing fact. We have talked about the Office of Tax Simplification, and I struggle because the Bill before us runs to 456 pages and the explanatory notes run to 679 pages. Perhaps we are not going in the right direction.

As I am sure Ministers are aware, I will air my views on this Finance Bill, both the bits I like and the bits I most certainly do not like. Starting with clause 2, we know that the income tax rates are 20%, 40% and the additional rate of 45%, but that does not tell the whole story, does it? We have this peculiar rate of 60%, as the annual allowance is taken away at £1 for every £2 of extra earnings over £100,000. The tax rate for those earning between £100,001 and £125,140 is, in fact, 60%.

At the autumn statement, we debated whether the 45% additional rate is the right measure at the right time, the right measure at the wrong time, or the wrong measure at any time, but I would have been more comfortable—this may surprise Ministers—if the 45% rate started at £100,000 and we got rid of the 60% band.

My entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests notes that I am a chartered accountant and a chartered tax adviser, and I recommend that the Treasury considers the number of people in that £100,001 to £125,140 band. It is all very well once people push their way through the band, but there are behaviours that can enable people to avoid the band, not least with the expansion of the annual allowance for pension contributions. I foresee that there will be very few people in that band, because they will use pension planning to make sure their income is always below £100,000 if there is any threat of being in that band.

I suppose this comes down to the whole concept of tax. I am not talking about a spreadsheet in the Treasury; I am talking about people’s behaviour. We sometimes forget that making such a change does not automatically spring a certain amount of tax out of the system, as people do other things. Additional money might be raised because people spend and pay VAT. We are all very familiar with the multiplier.

[Anthony Browne]

I thank my hon. Friend for his interesting speech.

[Craig Mackinlay]

Don’t worry; there is a lot more yet.

[Anthony Browne]

I am sure there is, and I might intervene later.

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about moving the 45% additional rate to £100,000, which I have previously recommended. Does he agree that it would be a good guiding objective for this Government, and indeed any Government, to try to reduce all marginal tax rates below 50%? It is a good, Conservative principle, but it applies to everyone, that people who work extra should keep at least half the money. People should never have to give more than half to the Government.

[Craig Mackinlay]

My hon. Friend speaks a truism that should not need to be spoken from the Conservative Benches, as it should be patently clear.

A sole trader who is running a good little business and doing quite well might be knocking on the door of £100,000 in profits—I would have thought that is not an unusual amount for some in the south-east of England, even in the building trades. Too many of them will say, “I’m not going to pay 60%, plus 2% national insurance. I will work four days a week and spend the fifth day on the golf course.” We are losing out through the 60% rate.

Ministers will not be surprised by my objection to corporation tax being increased from 19% to 25%.

[Richard Drax]

Raising corporation tax from 19% to 25% is a 31% increase. That figure is not often used.

[Craig Mackinlay]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. This 6 percentage point increase is actually very big in percentage terms.

The corporation tax increase is in clauses 5 and 6, and corporation tax has a story in this country. I went back to April 1973, a mere 50 years ago, and it was at 42% in those days. Corporation tax has generally fallen over time, both in the Conservative years and under the Labour Administration between 1997 and 2010. Peculiarly, the Labour Administration even introduced a 0% rate on small profits up to £10,000 between 2000 and 2006. I was more vigorously in practice at the time, and the 0% rate was a bizarre move that caused a rash of incorporations, which people did not need the wisdom of Solomon to foresee. The rate was deemed to be malused, shall we say, so things changed again.

Under us, since 2010, the maximum rate of corporation tax has reduced from 28% to 19%, and what have we seen? We used to have discussions about Laffer-curve economics, to which I am an adherent. There is a sweet spot at which reducing the rate raises more tax. That was behind the thinking of George Osborne, a previous Chancellor. I would not say that I agree with everything he did—I think he meddled rather too much with the tax system; hence, we now have a tax code that runs to about 23,000 pages—but he believed that reducing corporation tax would increase returns, which is exactly what happened. The money we are looking to raise to pay for the NHS, and to do all the good things that public services provide for us, was being delivered through a lower corporation tax rate. Is it any surprise that Ireland decided to put this on steroids by taking corporation tax down to 12.5%? The rate per head of receipt in corporation tax is four times the rate in the UK. Ireland’s corporation tax returns are way in excess of what is raised from one of our primary taxes, VAT.

We lived through the 19% rate era, however, which was very welcome. It attracted international business and, on the other side of this, made domestic businesses think that the risk reward was better and they therefore took their business forward. We had a lot of complications in the old days, when we had marginal rates and businesses had to go from the lower small company rate to the bigger company mainline rate. It was a complicated calculation, and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary referred to that. It was not only that that was complicated; those with a number of associated companies had to divide the limits, and it was a dreadfully complex calculation. She said clearly that the lower rate of 19% will remain for companies on up to £50,000 of profits, which is welcome and will catch a lot of the numbers as a percentage of the entirety registered at Companies House, so many companies will not be affected.

[Richard Fuller]

I do not want to disagree with my hon. Friend, but we on these Benches must stop being grateful when some of our businesses are exempted from increased taxation. We are the party that believes people know best how to spend their own money. We should be arguing for the widest spread of low taxes. He is talking about history, and the other aspect of corporation tax is the ability to attract capital. Back in the 1970s and ’80s, the largest source of capital to support our businesses was from a domestic pool of capital, but now we are competing for an international pool of capital. What effect does he think this increase in corporation tax will have on our ability to tap into those competitive global markets?

[Craig Mackinlay]

I do not think that was a criticism from my hon. Friend, but I was trying to be kind and find some good news in what is a fairly miserable story on corporation tax. He makes a good point: the world potentially has an almost limitless amount of global capital looking for a home, and I want that home to be here, and having a lower headline rate of corporation tax would be a very good way of achieving that. I want to develop the argument about the complication we have now added to the system.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I draw attention to my entry in the register. My hon. Friend is making a powerful point and is right about the impact of thresholds on behaviour. There are a number of thresholds, including the VAT threshold and income tax rates, and these marginal rates have a massive impact. Does he think that during the passage of this Bill the Government should consider whether the threshold of £50,000 to £250,000 ought to be higher, not least because catching a company just as it makes £50,000, on an ellipse of growth, and taxing it more is effectively to punish it for success?

What is his view on the notion that not just the rate but also consistency has an impact on the national and international sentiment about investment? The fact that we do not muck about with our rates all the time and they do not vary very significantly from year to year has a big impact on businesses’ ability to plan for the future. The Americans have a higher corporation tax rate than we do, but they have not touched it for years—it has been the same for many years—which allows businesses to trade a higher rate for a longer planning horizon. We might benefit from such a perspective.

[Craig Mackinlay]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point on the lower threshold for where 19% goes into the higher rate, and I am going to expand on what that rate actually is. He is right that £50,000 is not a king’s ransom these days; this should be in the phase of growth of a company as it goes on to higher levels.

I have some sympathy with my Front-Bench colleagues on the stability point. We need only think of the journey we have been on in just the last year. The former Chancellor, now the Prime Minister, declared that the rate would be going up to 25%. Then in autumn statement No. 1, it was going to stay where it was at 19%, but then we had autumn statement No.2, which confirmed that it would be going up to 25%. I was hopeful—I am sure my right hon. Friend and others were in a similar camp. I thought, “I will have a yo-yo this time; I am happy with a yo-yo. Let’s keep it at 19%.” However, my right hon. Friend makes the powerful point that stability is good. The rate might not be the one we prefer, but we can at least see to the horizon of where rates are likely to be quite a few years hence.

I want to expand on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) that the rise from 19% to 25% represents a 31% increase. I am afraid it is far worse than that on the marginal pound—say, if a company earns £50,001. To start at a 19% rate for up to £50,000 and get to a 25% rate at £250,000, the rate has to be more than 25% in between. The real rate on that marginal pound above £50,000 is 26.5%, so it is actually far worse. As I have said, we are going back to the bad old days where we have to divide those levels by the number of associated companies involved.

The full expensing is, of course, very welcome. I am sure that the Treasury has offered that as a quid pro quo in trying to encourage behaviour, so that companies can invest or are encouraged to invest in new plant, machinery, equipment and all the other stuff that will perhaps help our productivity gap, which we all know has been fairly poor for some time.

My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary mentioned the seed enterprise investment scheme under clause 15. There is also the old EIS, which is even more attractive to the small investor and is a means by which growth companies in early phases can get some capital from investors who may be looking for a home. The new higher levels are welcome, but I hope HMRC has the administration to cope with the applications. As my hon. Friend will know, we have had some problems with HMRC recently.

What does the message on higher corporation tax say to international investors? Big international investors will probably have a global accountancy firm that will analyse the tax rates, the deductions, the super deductions and the weave of things that go on in different countries, but the headline rate of 25% is not appealing. If a company is doing a first sort through Europe deciding where to go, Britain will not be appealing with one of the higher rates.

I worry that we are going for a sugar rush today that will lead to a deferred tax loss in the future because of the lack of domestic and international investment that otherwise might have come our way. That is a game of sliding doors—the title of a film I rather like—and one will never quite know what the future might have held, but this cannot be attractive to international investors. We raise taxes on things that are bad, such as cigarettes, to try to stop their use; why are we raising tax on something we want a lot more of?

I made a fairly lengthy speech on Budget day about the dividend tax—the dividend-free amount—and there is nothing on that in any of the clauses. I explained on the day that it has been through a story very much like the corporation tax story—up and down, with rates all over the place. We settled on the £5,000 amount of dividend-free allowance in about 2016. That did not last very long and went down to £2,000, and it is due to go down to £1,000 from next week. I stated on Budget day how I could live with £1,000 because it accords with other small amounts of income that HMRC is quite happy to disregard.

We have a disregard on trading allowance. Where someone has an eBay business that has advanced from selling the contents of the loft to doing a bit of trading, HMRC is not interested if it is under £1,000—it does not want to know and they do not have to do a tax return. A similar £1,000 allowance is in place for rent. Where someone rents their driveway out to a commuter or someone rents out their holiday home, if they are lucky enough to have one, for a couple of weeks a year, as long as the income is less than £1,000 they do not have to do a return, as no one is interested. A similar thing applies in respect of interest for basic rate taxpayers; £1,000 of interest may be earned and it does not need a tax return, as we are just not terribly interested.

The £1,000 level for dividends therefore has some common sense behind it. Obviously, as a low-tax Conservative, I would rather it were more, because this has already been taxed through the corporation tax system—it is not a deduction against corporate profits, so it is already a double tax. Reducing it further to £500 in 2024-25 breaks that £1,000 rate that we have established as reasonable. Not only that, but do we really want to drag in people who have been PAYE—pay-as-you-earn—all their lives?

We are talking about people with fairly simple affairs, who are perhaps retired and, for all the right reasons, have been in the Sharesave scheme. Let us suppose someone has accumulated a mere £10,000 over years of Sharesave in Lloyds Bank plc. The dividend from Lloyds, now that it is back paying dividends, is generally 5%. So for a mere £10,000 of Sharesave, which may have been accumulated over 20 years of work—hardly high amounts—these taxpayers, who have been PAYE all their lives, will now need to do a tax return in order to recover 8.75% on that marginal pound over £500. This seems to be unduly parsimonious, and I sincerely beg those on the Front Bench to look at it again. It will cost more for HMRC to administer these small amounts of tax receipts; there is no sensible intention here at all.

Clause 18 deals with the lifetime allowance for pensions. We are having a debate this afternoon, and Labour Members obviously think that this should be carved out just for those in the NHS and nobody else. We already have a carve-out for senior judges, and there is even a special one for the Leader of the Opposition. Why have this just for doctors? There is a saying in tax, which is that we should never allow the tax tail to wag the commercial dog, and that is exactly what has been happening with pensions: people have been retiring early and not taking up extra work because of this tax trap. I am delighted that we are getting rid of that trap. Surely a senior teacher who has been in employment for a number of years, a senior civil servant, or someone senior in the police or the armed services will be accumulating in excess of the old threshold of £1,073,000. Those very senior people are now likely to stay in post for longer, offering their services to the nation.

I could have lived with the £40,000 annual threshold, so I am delighted that it has gone up to £60,000. Why should a taxpayer—not a civil servant paid for by the public purse in any way—be penalised for good management of their pension fund? I have always found that bizarre. If they have been clever, they have had a great independent financial adviser or they have managed their own self-invested personal pension and they have exceeded that limit because of their own research and endeavours—and perhaps a bit of good luck—I say, “Good luck to them.” Why should there be a tax hit on that? Clause 20 and the annual allowance increase from £40,000 to £60,000 are therefore very welcome. The £40,000 threshold has been in place from 2014-15 and I calculated that, with inflation, it would be at £52,000 today. We have therefore done something outside the fiscal drag here, so that must be very good news. I would have thought that the Labour party, which has mentioned fiscal drag, would be grateful for that.

May I pay a particular tribute to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, because I believe that I have had a success in this Finance Bill, and I do not get too many of those? I spotted it! It comes in clause 29, which deals with estates in administration, and in parts 1 and 2 of schedule 2, under the heading “Low income trusts and estates”. I am ignoring the complication of multiple settlements, so let us put that aside. There has been a concession by HMRC for many years that if someone had an estate in administration and the tax payable was £100 or less, HMRC did not want to know. What a lovely simplifying measure that is. However, it did not apply to small trusts, for example, where granny had left the Lloyds shares. I am being very nice to Lloyds this afternoon, so let us use a different share—

[Kit Malthouse]

Standard Life.

[Craig Mackinlay]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the prompt.

Let us suppose the Standard Life shares had been left for the grandchildren to get the capital when they are 18—I am talking about the usual little family trust. Under the changes that were made some years ago, any small amount of dividends required a full tax return, because 7.5% of dividend tax had to be found and the stopping of withholding tax on bank interest received required that to be returned. We therefore had the mad situation where people with the smallest trusts, created perhaps many moons ago for austere reasons and with parsimonious amounts, were having to do a full trust return.

I have been pushing on this since 2017, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) was the Financial Secretary, and I saw in the Bill that we are not going to have the £100 disregard on tax and that there will be a £500 income in total disregard. Thankfully, these small trusts will be able to save their accountant’s fees, if they had even thought they needed one thus far. I hope that this measure will have a degree of retrospection and HMRC will not be raising £100 fines and more all over the place for the granny trusts with a few Standard Life shares in them. This could have been achieved just by HMRC practice or an old-fashioned extra statutory concession, but it is being done legislatively and I am delighted about that.

So we are up to clause 29 of the 352 in the Bill. Members will be grateful to hear that I will leave it to others to comment on the alcohol duty changes, which range from clauses 44 to 120. So we have cut out a good amount there, Mr Deputy Speaker. What I am going to say now will perhaps be aired by others this afternoon. There was nothing on Budget day—not even the barest word—about these OECD pillar two proposals. To the Financial Secretary’s credit, she did mention them, but perhaps rather more briefly than required, given that half the Bill relates to them. In easy terms, as the Bill mentions, this is about the “multinational top-up tax”. It sounds cosy, does it not? Additionally, between clauses 265 and 312, there are measures on the “domestic top-up tax”. The House might be pleased to know that I am now up to clause 312 of 352. I have, constitutionally, an extreme disquiet, not about the proposal itself, but about what such a major international treaty commitment is doing within a Finance Bill. This has far-reaching consequences for UK corporation tax rules, yet it has been barely mentioned before today, and it is in a Finance Bill when it should be standing alone as an international treaty.

What worries me further, and it has been raised in interventions, is that most of the rest of the world is saying, “Thanks, but no thanks.” It seems that only the UK and South Korea are making substantial progress on this. I know that Switzerland, Holland, Germany and Japan have begun drafting, but 100 other countries are doing absolutely nothing at all at the moment and the EU has allowed a six-year run-on for the directive to take full effect. Four countries—Hong Kong, Thailand, Singapore and the USA—are saying that it is not for them at all.

Why, having had multiple years of Brexit battles, which were, at their core, over the sovereignty and independence of this nation, would we wish to outsource our own international corporation tax affairs to a supranational body? We are already having battles in the House with the Illegal Migration Bill about how the 1951 convention and the ECHR obligations are coming home to roost. Those conventions and treaties were signed with the best of intentions at the time, when the world was a rather different place, but they are now coming home to roost in ways that we perhaps did not expect.

The manifesto commitment on which I and every Conservative MP stood in 2019 was to take back control of our money and our laws. To see us almost unilaterally adopting this international accord on corporation tax seems rather strange. I am afraid that we are seeing rather a lot of this, including in terms of climate change commitments. We seem to be promoting a Betamax when the rest of the world is waiting for the VHS to come down the line. Being first in the field is not always the best place to be.

Perhaps it is thought that this will be a new tax-raising measure—I have seen it written that £2 billion could be raised by it. I stand to be corrected, but over many years Finance Bills have had substantial anti-avoidance legislation to stop transfer pricing. That has been the feature of much tax legislation over many years, which I would have thought would catch and overcome any mischief on low-tax profit shifting. But will this actually raise anything? I wonder what the OECD is trying to achieve. Will low-tax jurisdictions, particularly those involved in the insurance industry, just sit back and say, “Oh well, profits will be taxed up the line in the UK or elsewhere”—a very limited number of companies are taking this onboard—or will they raise tax themselves? That seems the obvious place they will go, but there is a conundrum. Much of the legislation is to do with how we calculate that profit. We have our means of calculating profit according to our corporation tax law, and other countries do the same. This is trying to overlay a determination of OECD profit out of the books and records of large, multinational corporations in the UK. That is what this is all about. It is about trying to create a new form of profit.

We have seen that—I have commented on it in the past—in something that is quite simple: whether one qualifies for support for childcare. We have three forms of calculation of profit in our tax code relating to the simple sole trader. That is the normal taxable profit in accordance with our tax law. We have a different assessment—it is marginally different—for calculation of profit to qualify for universal credits. Then there is something completely different, if someone wants to calculate their due profit for qualification of child help and support. Therefore, we are overlaying more complication on that OECD framework.

[Kit Malthouse]

Again, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Does my hon. Friend think that there is a risk that countries may seek to manipulate their tax code in such a way that, while their headline rate might comply with the international minimum, the effective rate could be manipulated by the creation of all sorts of bonkers and crazy allowances, as we have seen in the past? We have full expensing of capital. That is fine for a capital-intensive company, but we have lots of items that are disqualified for corporation tax, which could be allowed if we wanted to make the effective rate lower than the minimum 15% in future. In many ways, that encourages even more gaming of the system by countries, rather than the system that we have at the moment, where it is a bit more transparent, if indeed complex.

[Craig Mackinlay]

My right hon. Friend highlights the problem that different countries could indeed game the system. The peculiarity here is the domestic top-up tax. Even if, under the UK calculation of profit, a business had a profit rate of more than 15%, it could be under 15% using the OECD way of calculating profit and therefore there would be a top-up tax. That is truly perverse. In accordance with UK tax law, perfect rates of corporation tax are being paid, but because it does not comply with these new strictures, of which there are hundreds of pages in this legislation, someone could find themselves paying a domestic top-up.

My concern is whether we will see a rash of new statutory instruments, as we have new external nation-UK tax treaties needing to be looked at and unwound. I wonder, too, whether any thought has been given to potential trade deals; I am given to understand that the US is looking quite negatively at countries that are looking to implement the OECD pillar 2 proposals.

I am just about to conclude, which I am sure will be a great relief to many. What would I like those on the Treasury Front Bench to look at carefully before we get to Committee stage, Report and beyond? I recommend that we strip out the multinational top-up tax clauses, or implement what other hon. Friends have suggested, a start date more in accordance with when the rest of the world thinks this is a great idea as well. Otherwise, as I have said before, we could be buying the Betamax when we should be waiting for VHS.

These measures occupy half of the Bill. I would like to hear assurances that for 2024-25 we can have the £1,000 as a general disregard threshold applied to dividend taxes under a simplification measure. However, given that the Bill runs to such a huge volume, I would like to hear more about how we are going to replace the Office of Tax Simplification. I think it would be fair to say that I know many of the characters in there—there were a number of ex-presidents of the Chartered Institute of Taxation. I do not know quite how wide a remit they had, but one has to assume they did not really get very far with tax simplification.

When I qualified as a chartered accountant in 1991, there was big talk about the tax law rewrite to change seven pages explaining first in, first out with perhaps one word, FIFO. We have a lot of verbiage in our tax system, and to address and simplify the 23,000 pages would aid everybody. Those are my brief observations on the Finance Bill.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I notice that my two predecessors in the Chair this afternoon have paid tribute to Baroness Boothroyd, and I would like to do the same. Betty was one of the two great Speakers of my parliamentary lifetime, the other being Jack Weatherill—that is excluding the current Speaker, of course, who will no doubt take his own place in those annals. Not all Speakers have a facility with names and faces, and Betty freely admitted she was one who did not—something you may have noticed I sometimes suffer from myself. She just used to say, “You, lovey—no, no, not you, lovey; you, lovey.” Happily, I can remember Stewart Hosie’s name.

Stamp Duty Land Tax (Reduction) Bill

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

In fact, the statistics quoted by the hon. Member show that the Bill will not help people. It will not help first-time buyers, and it is not just Labour Members who are saying that: the Resolution Foundation has provided statistical evidence that it will not help them. We want to help first-time buyers as well, but this is not the right solution. It will be mainly second and additional homes that benefit. Our two amendments would amend Government amendment 1 to remove the relief for buyers of additional dwellings, and would remove clause 1 (3), which raises the threshold for them. They would prevent the Bill from giving relief from stamp duty to buyers of second homes. I hope the hon. Member will support our proposals, particularly our amendment to enable first-time buyers to get on to the ladder as he wishes them to do.

As I have made clear, we do not believe that this stamp duty cut is the right or responsible way in which to spend £3.2 billion of public money, but if the Government are not willing to cancel the cut altogether, I urge Conservative Members at the very least to support our amendment to prevent second home buyers from receiving a £2,500 tax cut.

New clause 1, which Labour has also tabled, requires the Chancellor to be up front and transparent about the costs of the partial U-turn on the stamp duty cut, and to set out the measures that the Government will take to mitigate the impact of the abrupt end of the stamp duty relief at the end of March 2025. We know from the Government’s policy paper on this tax change that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will have to incur costs in the region of £300,000 to change IT systems, and about £2.4 million in extra staff costs. That is ridiculous. Through new clause 1, we aim to push Ministers further by asking them to set out specifically the costs of implementing their U-turn

“for the Government, the property industry, and homebuyers”,

as well as

“any wider costs and impacts of the change…on the housing market”.

We are also asking them to set out the measures they are

“planning to ease the impact on tax revenues, home purchases and the housing market of the reduction in stamp duty…coming to an abrupt end on 31 March 2025.”

We know from Government amendment 12 that Ministers are introducing measures to ensure that transitions that straddle the end of the temporary relief benefit from the reduction, but the question of the impact of ending the stamp duty relief goes much further than that. In 2016, the Office for Budget Responsibility published a paper on property tax changes and forestalling when transactions are brought forward to benefit from lower tax rates. The OBR found that in each historic case that was analysed, the preannouncement of an upcoming tax increase led to a sizeable forestalling. Forestalling is therefore expected to be an important issue in relation to the end of the temporary stamp duty cut, and we urge the Government to set out the measures they are planning ahead of that. If they are not willing to accept our new clause 1, I urge the Minister to set out the detail that we request, either at the end of the debate or subsequently in writing.

When our country is suffering the consequences of 13 years of low growth and of the Conservatives’ economic chaos at the end of last year, now is not the time to be spending £3.2 billion on this tax cut, particularly when hundreds of millions of pounds will go to the buyers of second homes. We urge Members in all parts of the Committee to support our amendments to remove the tax cut for second-home buyers, and to join us in opposing the Bill on Third Reading.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

I think that the Government have made a number of admissions today about the importance of property taxes, and stamp duty land tax in particular. During the covid period we used a reduction to try to stimulate the market and keep it afloat, for good reasons. I heard what was said by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). There are often flipsides, downsides and unintended consequences from tax changes, but the implicit admission from the Minister was that lower stamp duty encourages market transactions. In my mind that has to be a good thing, because property sales refresh housing stock. I imagine that the first thing any of us who are lucky enough to own a property will do when we purchase it is to do stuff. We might improve the bathrooms—or whatever we fancy, if pockets are deep enough—but those transactions that we make with local builders and others add to the local market. They add jobs, and there are VAT revenues and profits for B&Q and elsewhere. This all comes with it.

A trap that the Liberal Democrats and the Opposition Front Bench fall into is that they do not see tax as a game of chess. Too often we—the Treasury included—see tax as a one-step move: if we do this, it will create just that. It is far more complicated than that, because there are other outcomes in terms of economic activity that are not always recognised. But the strict admission by the Government Front Bench today is that lower stamp duty makes the wheels turn, and that has to be to the good.

We are currently seeing a modest reduction in house prices, so this type of measure to reduce stamp duty is very much to be welcomed, but I have a rather more long-standing objection to SDLT and to this form of capital tax generally, but most particularly to SDLT, because it stops labour mobility. If one of my constituents, someone with a family, were offered a job elsewhere in the country, the most natural thing would be to sell their property and move to that new area. But when they are faced with a stiff bill for SDLT, they have to be doubly or triply sure that this is the right move, because it is likely to cost tens of thousands of pounds. It worries me that people are not taking up roles elsewhere because they need to be absolutely sure. What probably happens is that they take a rental property elsewhere to get a feel for the area and find out whether the job is right. That is not helpful for their family life in the longer term.

The Government Front-Bench team made another admission this afternoon. Not surprisingly, the Minister announced with great fanfare the very good news that in vast areas of the country, the majority of transactions will fall outside of stamp duty. That is particularly true for those buying a property for the first time. We often talk about tax, and people’s idea of fairness will probably be different depending on where they sit in this House, but can it really be fair that a constituent in South Thanet who is trying to purchase a modest property will face this SDLT charge just because they are in Kent in the south-east, whereas someone buying the self-same kind of property in another part of the country will not pay that tax at all? I am not entirely sure of the fairness of that. I would rather that everyone paid a similar amount in a property transaction, possibly based on the size of the property.

Another area that I have discussed with many colleagues over the years, including at a few roundtables, is retirement mobility. Too often, people who have lost their partner, a husband or wife, are stuck in their old property. We are very much aware of the cost of heating that type of property. They do not have the ability to do more work to increase their annual income, and they are stuck in a property that is too big for them, with all those memories of old. They realise that they really ought to move somewhere smaller that is more energy efficient and closer to services. However, if they live in an area of the country that is expensive, they might find an ideal property that is smaller and has all those good things, but there will be a very big SDLT charge.

I know the thoughts of older people, because I have had these discussions with my father and friends, and when they look at the potential bill just for doing the right thing through retirement mobility, they often say, “Do you know what, I’m not prepared to pay it. I’m just not going to pay £10,000 or £20,000 or whatever the price may be to do the right thing.” They do not want to pay that much to move somewhere more appropriate for older living.

I implore the Minister to receive a document from me and to have a conversation about the concept of a downsizing relief for older people. It could be fixed to retirement age, when people’s ability to earn has gone because they have retired. Perhaps they could get some credit, such as free stamp duty, for doing the right thing in moving to a smaller home, which is sensible for them, the family and everyone else. In so doing, they would be releasing those bigger homes for the families who need them.

The Growth Plan

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

Friday 23rd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

If bankers are working in London, they are taxed in London; if they move out of the UK, they are taxed elsewhere, and we do not see a penny of tax revenue. Financial services are not just about the City of London; they are also provided in Edinburgh and a whole range of other towns. We have to be at the apex of the global financial system. We have to attract the talent, then we can tax it and use the revenue for public services.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

May I offer the Chancellor my congratulations on his growth plan? He will know of my interest in tax; the Register of Members’ Financial Interests will show it. I am delighted to see lower and simpler taxes. I think it is fair to say that the Conservatives’ inheritance of the claim to be a party of low taxes had become somewhat opaque and confused in recent years. Does he agree with my simplistic summary of what he is saying today: that this party believes in taking a smaller percentage out of a bigger pie, rather than in the state nicking more from a static and diminishing pie? The latter seems to be the message of the Opposition parties—except for the Democratic Unionist party, of course.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

We openly repudiate a socialist vision of society. We do not believe that the state should take more and more of people’s income. We think that people should keep more and more of their earnings.

Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Bill

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 11th July 2022 Commons Chamber

Let us take a step back from the details. We simply do not believe this tax break is right; it undermines the windfall tax, it does not even work on its own terms and it flies in the face of the urgent need to respond to the climate crisis. That is why we have tabled amendments 2 to 7. When we conclude this debate, we intend to vote against clause 2 to remove this tax relief in its entirety. For months, we have opposed the Government’s tax rises on working people. In the past few days, we have heard Conservative leadership candidates talking a lot about tax cuts. If potential Tory leaders refuse to back us tonight, one of the very first votes they cast since launching their campaigns will be to cut taxes for oil producers. If they keep refusing to back us tonight, they will be opposing our fully funded plan to cut VAT on home energy bills. That will simply confirm what we all already know to be true: that changing the person at the top of the Conservative party is not going to change anything at all. We need a change of Government, and that means we need a Labour Government.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

I was asked on 26 May by one of the main newspapers what I thought about this proposal of a windfall tax, on the back of what Labour had proposed some time before. I gave this fairly high-octane statement:

“Whichever way you look at it, a 65% tax rate applied to an industry that we need to encourage to help us through our energy policy mess seems topsy-turvy.

Higher taxes can never mean lower prices.”

And this was the statement that caused some alarm and was widely reported:

“All in all, I’m disappointed, embarrassed and appalled that a Conservative Chancellor could come up with this tripe.”

With the change of Chancellor, I had hoped that we would have quietly disposed of the Bill and not progressed to Second Reading. It should sensibly have been scrapped, but although the former Chancellor has gone, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), is still here and presented the Bill this afternoon. I fully understand public disquiet about the supranormal profits that have been earned by the oil and gas industry over the period. The hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), who speaks from the Labour Front Bench, has made those points, which form the backbone of some of Labour’s new clauses.

The comments of various chief executives of the oil and gas industry—calling their profits “cash machines” and all that—were particularly unhelpful; they did not do themselves too many favours. Such companies lost similar amounts of money during covid, when, as we all recall, the gas and oil price completely collapsed. Owing to storage issues, there were a few days when oil was trading at a negative rate, which was rather bizarre; I wish I had had a few barrels to fill at the time.

We already did some rather strange things in years past. Under the Finance (No. 2) Act 2017, we restricted the carry-forward of losses. There is an allowance of £5 million, but the amount of profit that can be relieved with carried-forward losses is restricted to 50% on the rest. We have created a tax regime whereby we are happy to take the profits and tax them, but we are not willing appropriately to relieve the losses, and I am not sure that any of Labour’s new clauses would address that.

I have had discussions with various Front Benchers prior to today. Labour has objected to many parts of the Bill, because in its analysis of life—shadow Ministers have given quite a lot away— anything less than taking 100% of everything is a loss of tax. I am not sure that it was quite what the hon. Member for Ealing North intended to say, but he clearly suggested that that is Labour’s view of tax: it is necessary to take the lot, as anything less is a sort of tax give-back.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Member may know that over the last few decades, the five biggest oil companies have made $2 trillion of profit, and the profit that they have been making is over the normal operational costs. What we have now, thanks to Putin’s war, is a massive price hike. That windfall profit is literally that—the companies have done nothing to earn it; they have simply stolen money from the pockets of people using transport and filling their cars. Is the hon. Member saying that that theft should simply be kept by the oil companies, which have done nothing other than exploit an illegal war? What sort of statement is that?

[Craig Mackinlay]

The hon. Gentleman has merely clarified what I have been trying to say; yes, of course there were supranormal profits on the back of Ukraine war and coming out of covid, when the entire planet was getting its factories back up and running and life was returning to normal. I had hoped I was making the clear point that there were substantial losses by similar companies in years past. Given the hon. Gentleman’s analysis, I assume that grain wholesalers would face a similar tax from Labour. Semiconductor manufacturers supplying their goods from South Korea would similarly, through artificial means, have earnt good profits at this time. It seems that the Labour party would definitely want to tax everybody on anything that it considered to be an inappropriate amount of profit, whatever that might be.

I have a number of objections to the levy. Labour’s new clauses 7 and 8 go some way to clarifying a little of what I am saying, although I will not support them tonight. Let me turn to the relevant North sea businesses that will be caught by the levy. Since 1 January 2002, we have had the ringfenced corporation tax at 30%—more than our current headline rate of corporation tax. The supplementary charge, which goes on top of that, has been up and down over the years. It commenced on 17 April 2002 and peaked during the coalition period—very relevantly, between 24 March 2011 and 31 December 2014 —at 32%. Of course, the then Department for Business, Innovation and Skills was held by the Liberal Democrats in the coalition, so that gives us a little insight as to what they think of tax: it is generally a high one.

We had a 62% tax during that period, but immediately prior to this legislation the supplementary charge had been down to 10%. We were bobbling along with massive profits and were taking 40% of the total to the Treasury. Whichever way I look at it, I see that as a goodly rate of tax. However, under clause 1, which has just been outlined by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), this new energy profits levy is 25%.

Let me be very clear about my objections: a 65% tax rate is excessive in any tax regime. We are asking the self-same companies to go all out—“Please go all out!”—for more oil and gas in the North sea at this time of energy crisis, energy insecurity and very high prices. Why have they not, thus far, explored those parts of the North sea that we are now asking them to explore? It is because they are more complicated, deeper and more hostile environments. The profits derived from those tougher locations—the higher hanging fruit, rather than the lower hanging fruits—will be less, as the costs are higher.

I am aware of what I perceive as the tax nudge, but I am afraid that it is a little bit like Baldrick’s cunning plan. We are trying to nudge companies—this is about the only good thing about the Bill—by saying, “You make the right investments to get more oil and gas out of the North sea that we desperately need, and we will give you a very substantial tax relief.” And that tax relief is substantial, at 91.25%. I am afraid that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has let the cat out of the bag; if that is the Baldrick cunning plan, which I can see the benefit of, how can we have estimated £5 billion as the amount of tax to be raised? That cunning plan is not going to work fully; many companies will not take the option of relieving the variety of taxes that are now before them, they will not invest, and we will be taking £5 billion out of the industry.

We are not only asking the companies to undertake new investment in the North sea. We are asking them to undertake some rather fresh thinking and research, with unknown outcomes, on the net zero pathway. I know for a fact that BP is doing a lot of work in this field—its people have been in one of the dining rooms of this House—and good luck to it, but as has been highlighted by the Labour Front Benchers, there is nothing in the Bill that nudges such investment in the net zero field.

“Profit” is not a dirty word. Profits pay our salaries, every salary of every civil servant, and every single pension in this country; they are all on the back of profits. “Profit” is a good word—a word that makes the world turn. Another objection I have to the levy is that the self-same companies, which are earning good profits, are the backbone of many blue chip investments that can be found in practically every pension fund in the land, because they are good dividend payers. Millions of pensioners rely on those dividends—a long and usual flow that can be relied on year in, year out. By the Government taking the extra 25%, those dividend flows will have to be lessened. We cannot take another 25% out of a profit and expect the dividends to flow at the same rate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

Is the hon. Member seriously saying that the companies that currently work in the North sea—companies that are environmentally responsible, take workers’ rights very seriously and look after their workers—might just move somewhere else in the world and give up on workers’ rights and the environment? That does not sound like responsible companies, yet that is what he seems to be saying they would do.

[Craig Mackinlay]

I am saying very clearly that big companies can make investments anywhere they please in the world, perhaps with tax regimes that are more suitable to them and where they are not being taxed at 65%. I would rather that they were investing here and staying here than going abroad to invest, with all the potential consequential impacts on the environment and employment. It seems that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

I rise in response to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). I declare an interest: I used to work for BP. I worked in the oil and gas industry for 25 years. I worked for BP in the North sea in this country, and in Angola, Venezuela and a range of different places. I worked for other companies in other countries as well. It is true that these companies have made their bread and butter in this country, and cut their teeth in the North sea, particularly from a safety point of view. The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) mentioned Piper Alpha, which led to our having one of the highest regulatory regimes on the planet. It is not true to say that companies abandon that when they work elsewhere; it does make it a lot more difficult for them to work in those environments, but it does not stop them.

May I take the opportunity to totally agree with what my hon. Friend was saying before? This legislation, for all its flaws, compared with what Labour is proposing—

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) will resume his seat. We are getting interventions on interventions, because the interventions are perhaps a little long, and people are mistaking them for speeches. Please remember that interventions are supposed to be quite short.

[Craig Mackinlay]

Thank you, Dame Rosie, for clarifying that. I think that we will find that the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) was being a touch facetious.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Craig Mackinlay]

I had not developed a point, but, please, make an intervention.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way—I am intervening on a previous point on which he was intervened on. Is he aware that the 65% tax that the Government are proposing is still below the global average? The figure in Angola is actually higher at 70%, so there is not any real logic to what he is saying. These oil companies are already operating in places where the tax is higher.

[Craig Mackinlay]

Let me take a couple of those points. The hon. Lady makes the point that tax rates on the oil and gas industry are higher elsewhere in the world. Well, that may be the case. I know that some will be fundamentally opposed to the whole concept of being energy secure in the UK. Gas, in my view, is part of an interim solution as we get on the path to net zero, but it is a fact of life. I do not have an awful lot of time for the output of the Climate Change Committee, but even it is saying very clearly that we will be using gas and oil up to 2050 and probably beyond. My view is that that gas and oil should be sourced in the UK. Hence my support for the nudge part of this legislation, which may encourage businesses to stay here and invest here.

I did not address properly the point from my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid). He makes the point that we have the most fantastic environmental standards not just in oil and gas technology, but in practically everything that we do in the manufacturing space in the UK. There will be very few regimes around this world that have such high standards. On the issue of methane venting, which we have not really addressed, I can be absolutely sure that, with a very robust and advanced regulatory regime, the advanced oil and gas companies of this country will be telling the truth and doing the right thing rather more than may be the case elsewhere, and I think we have to accept that as a fact of life.

[Caroline Lucas]

First, the hon. Member seems to think that just because gas is exploited in the UK, it will get used in the UK, yet he must know that it gets sold on global markets and therefore might get used anywhere. Secondly, he talks about our environmental standards being higher than others. He will know that we get most of our gas from Norway, where, actually, its carbon footprint is significantly less than it is here in the UK. His argument just does not stand up.

[Craig Mackinlay]

I am so delighted that the hon. Lady has expanded this debate. This is not somewhere that I wanted to go, Dame Rosie, but I think it is my duty to respond to the intervention. Surely it is obvious, no matter where on the spectrum on net zero we are—I am obviously on the rather more critical part of that spectrum—that we will be having gas in this country. We have a choice: do we import it halfway across the world on a liquefied natural gas ship, with the CO₂ cost of chilling it, transporting it and regasifying it, or do we try to do that domestically?

[Caroline Lucas]

We sell it on international markets.

[Craig Mackinlay]

If I may, Dame Rosie, I will address the hon. Lady’s questions. On international markets, I do not know any more about economics than this: if we add more capacity to any system, the price should drop. Even if her view of economics holds water and the price does not drop, which I think is the basis of what she is saying, would I prefer the pounds of gas revenue to be at least retained and spent in the UK, or do I want to export those pounds to Qatar? I do not think there is much choice, and the answer is obvious.

I will finish now, Dame Rosie—I am sorry for the time I have taken, but I am grateful for your indulgence. If we take up this type of proposal of penal taxes that can be changed within a month, we will lose in future deferred taxes the opportunity cost of investment. Big companies will say, “Do you know what? The UK is not a place for good investment. I think I will take my money elsewhere.” We may get £5 billion out of this tax as a windfall, but over time, in my view, we will lose more than £5 billion in the lost opportunity of businesses being attracted to the UK.

I have never believed, as has said in the House this afternoon, that the investment plans of the big oil and gas companies will be unaffected by this. I have been having discussions with them. There are already signs that they are scaling back their investment activities to the detriment of UK energy security, and I am afraid this Bill does not help with that all. If there is a Division on Third Reading, I will be voting against the Bill this evening.

[Stephen Flynn]

Repetition is of course a convention of this House, but I am not much for many of the conventions of this House, so I do not intend to say much more than I did earlier about the Bill in general. I will just reflect very briefly on the amendments in my name and the names of my hon. Friends.

Amendment 9 relates directly to the electrification of North sea assets. We have heard comforting words about that from two Ministers now. I am sure the Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change, now sitting beside the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, would agree that it will be in guidance that the electrification of assets will be able to get the taxation incentives. We cannot escape the fact that Ministers come and go, as we have seen so clearly in this place over the course of recent times, but what industry needs in relation to this issue is certainty. The best way—the only way—to provide certainty on the electrification of grids is to put that on the face of the Bill.

I agree with the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) on one point he made: it is deeply disappointing that there is not additional scope for the wider renewable sector to get these incentives. If the Government were serious about combating climate change and reaching their net zero ambitions, they would have extended those incentives to that industry.

That takes me on to new clause 6, again in my name and those of my hon. Friends, which aptly relates to net zero. The Government have rightly promoted, and will continue to promote, climate compatibility checks. I think we all in this place agree about those. What we need to be clear about, however, is the implications of this Bill for reaching net zero. The easiest, indeed the obvious, way to do that is to ensure that those climate compatibility environmental checks take place in relation to any investments. I thought that would be a very straightforward thing for the Government to agree with, and I hope they will do so.

Finally, in relation to new clause 7, I have teased this argument out on a couple of occasions in exchanges with Ministers: we know there is going to be a sunset clause on this levy, to end it in a couple of years’ time. However, the phrase “normal oil and gas prices” keeps being used again and again. We heard inferences from the former Chancellor that somewhere around $60 to $70 a barrel was normal. I just did a very quick calculation of prices. Between 2015 and 2021 the price was $56 a barrel, but between 2010 and 2015 it was double that, at $101.4 a barrel. I again ask the Minister—[Interruption.] Indeed, oil and gas is a good argument for independence.

Customs (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2022 General Committees

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. Perhaps the Minister could explain the benefits of the regulations? I understand that they are technical, and I am sure that the intention is to solve the mischief of the back-door route via the Republic into Northern Ireland and GB, but I will read what it says in the Northern Ireland protocol. In the preamble it is pretty clear that

“Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom and will benefit from participation in the United Kingdom’s independent trade policy”.

Article 4 says very clearly:

“Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom.”

I am sure it comes as no surprise to the Minister that when we see a statutory instrument of this type, which highlights a difference of approach in customs arrangements under section 63 of the CEMA—I have looked it up—then that raises alarm bells when a part of the United Kingdom, accepted in the protocol as fully and absolutely within the customs union of the United Kingdom, is treated separately from the UK as a whole.

Those are my concerns. If the Minister could lay them to rest, I might be in a different situation. However, as things stand, the SI almost exemplifies the difference that we need to be solve, not expand. Such SIs seem to expand and highlight that difference, particularly in the light of the recent court judgment in Northern Ireland and the fact that the Act of Union highlighted a long, long time ago—200 years ago or thereabouts—that there were complete and absolute freedoms to conduct business between any part of our Union, with no differences in tariffs, arrangements or anything else.

However, it would seem that the protocol, with its flaws, is being shown up as rewriting parts of that ancient Act of Union, with which we are all very familiar. Changes to the Act of Union seem to have crept through the back door, and that was not the promise that was given. Such statutory instruments make alarm bells ring in my head that we are not terribly serious about getting a proper solution to the protocol. Instead, we are giving into the inevitable and simply have to lump it, and I say to my respected right hon. and learned Friend that I really do not want to lump it. I have grave concerns about the statutory instrument and the direction in which things are going.

Household Energy Bills: VAT

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alan Brown]

I agree wholeheartedly. It is interesting that the Government are now revisiting the Rough gas-storage scheme. Yes, there has been a global impact on wholesale prices and prices would have risen, but it is clear that storage facilities would help to provide a buffer for the UK in times of need.



If we look at the history of North sea exploration, Scotland has paid £375 billion of oil and gas revenues to the Exchequer, which has been squandered by successive UK Governments. For all these years, the SNP has called for an oil and gas fund to be set up, which could have been utilised in this time of need. Norway did not start its oil fund until 1990, yet it is already the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. It grew by £90 billion during 2020—one of the covid years—and now has assets worth well over $1 trillion. That is the kind of long-term strategic planning that has been missing in the UK but that would create a buffer when required.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

I may have missed it, but an element of clarity may be needed in the SNP’s position. The hon. Gentleman said that the SNP will support the reduction in VAT. Is it right that the SNP’s ambition is to be an independent country in the EU, under which his ambition to have 0% VAT on fuel would be completely scuppered and dictated to by other people in Brussels? Is that the SNP’s position?

[Alan Brown]

I will make it clear for the hon. Gentleman: yes, our ambition is to be an independent country and yes, we want to join the EU. The vote today is about a temporary VAT holiday. The argument could be made that that could not happen under the EU, but energy policy would be reserved to Scotland so we would have much fairer policies. We would be able to do more and make other decisions, which would not rely on us having to back a 5% VAT holiday in Westminster. We would be able to do a lot more as an independent country, even in the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

Sadly, this Opposition day debate is, I believe, an opportunity lost for the Opposition. Energy prices and how we can help the lower-paid—and all of us, frankly—to weather the storm of high energy prices is a great topic to be debating. We could have had a debate this afternoon about why that has happened, rather than just papering over the crack of the problem that we are in, which is frankly all we can do at the moment.

Of course, VAT is one measure that is in our gift to take, now that we are outside the European Union. It is quite funny. Labour spent weeks, months and even years trying to frustrate the Brexit referendum. Mr Deputy Speaker, you were here at the time of what I would call the Brexit wars. We remember the scars of the Letwin amendment, the Grieve Bill and the Benn-Burt Bill, when similar activity was indulged in this House and people tried to take over the Order Paper and get their way, in opposition to the elected Government of the day.

I hate to break it to the Opposition, but the Government of the day are on these Benches, and they have a pretty big majority. They control the agenda, and I do not think we want to go through the shenanigans of the past. However, if Labour had left today’s motion to about the first line, I think I would be speaking greatly in support of it. The first line says:

“That this House calls on the Government to cut the rate of VAT for household energy bills”.

I agree with that absolutely and entirely, but we need to go further in addressing the papering over the cracks during 20 years of failed energy policy. It is not just our energy policy that has failed—I will admit that—but the Opposition energy policy that failed when they were in government.

I am absolutely delighted that the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) is with us today, because I think I can put at his doorstep many of the problems that we face, through the climate change levy, the renewables obligation and the Climate Change Act 2008, which added all those extra green and renewable levies on to our energy bills at a time when we really do not want or need them.

I will quote what the right hon. Gentleman said in 2008, justifying rising costs to business in energy prices. He said that it was a good price to pay and that we should sacrifice economic growth to cut emissions. That is exactly what we are doing now. We need cheap energy. We need a debate on our energy supply. Is it at all sensible that Britain and the European Union spend billions on gas with Putin’s Russia, so that he can have more money to create weapons of offence on the borders of Europe and the UK? It is a mad policy. We need a new policy, but today is not the time for supporting the Opposition.

Health and Social Care Levy Bill

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 14th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

As the hon. Gentleman is on our side, I look forward to him joining us in the Lobby this evening.

Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury put it unequivocally on the record that no rebate from the health and social care levy for those with private insurance will ever be entertained? A two-tier healthcare system is the very last thing we need. What the social care sector desperately needs is guaranteed funding and a plan to transform the sector. This Bill delivers neither.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about a two-tier system. Is he saying that the millions of people in the public sector and the not-for-profit sector who have auto-enrolled pensions are rather daft to have a sensible pot under their own name, with the flexibility that it brings? Are you calling millions of taxpayers daft?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is experienced enough to know that he should not speak directly to another Member.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

In common with my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), I am wondering—I think many of us are—why we are here today. We have a fiscal event, the autumn Budget, in just six weeks’ time, which would seem to be the right forum to discuss these matters. One cannot help but wonder: why the haste.

We had the Dilnot commission report in July 2011, 10 years ago. Arguably, even then, that was 10 years too late. It was intended to solve the inherent unfairness between two people who were on similar incomes throughout their lives, one who rented and one who bought their home, whereby one lost everything and one got everything for free. That is at the heart of these issues and of affordability in the longer term. I get that, and the Government have to be applauded for finally thinking about these things, but haste is not due at this time.

I am sad that we are just reaching for the tax lever. That is not what Conservatives do. We are going to end up with a tax take at the highest level of GDP for 70 years. Since we are raising NICs—particularly employer’s NICs—it stands to reason that any employer with a pot that they were thinking about using to increase general salaries across their workforce will reduce that pot by 1.25%.

Let us concentrate on NICs. On our first day back at school last Monday, we debated the National Insurance Contributions Bill, which exempts from NICs veterans and potentially new freeport businesses. We have employer’s NIC relief for the under-21s and for those under 25 on apprenticeships. We have an employment allowance to exempt employers from national insurance. That was at £3,000 for all small employers, and it has now increased to £4,000, because exempting employers from national insurance is deemed to be a good thing.

I say to those on the Treasury Bench: please help me. We tend to tax things that are deemed to be bad. We tax things such as alcohol, cigarettes and fuel because we want lower use of them. They are deemed to be bad. Increasing a tax on jobs, something we want a lot of, seems rather bizarre.

I serve on the Public Accounts Committee, and just last week we did an investigation into the Department for Work and Pensions. Last year alone, there was £8.3 billion of fraud and error in its payments out. Obviously, the pandemic had something to do with that, but there is an in-built annual loss of £5.5 billion through fraud and error. That is something approaching half of what we are looking for here to solve these problems.

As Conservatives, we grasp difficult problems. We grasp and understand the problem of an ageing demographic in our populations. On pensions, we did something novel. We could have just reached for the tax lever, but we did not. We introduced auto enrolment pensions, where the employer and the employee contribute and every employee in the land earning above a certain amount has a pot that they can call their own, with the flexibility that that has. To me, that is the type of thinking we should be doing now. I am very concerned that we will just sink another load of tax into the Department of Health and Social Care and hope for a different outcome, when we have been throwing money into these Departments for many years, yet our waiting lists are at the highest ever.

Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition have been howling, “Let’s have wealth taxes.” Well, I am very pleased to tell them that, yes, we have a very substantial wealth tax in play and it is called inheritance tax. It has doubled since 2011, from £2.7 billion to £5.4 billion today, and that will be going in one direction, given asset value inflations and the fiscal drag within the IHT system.

[Dr Murrison]

Of course, we have also had a wealth tax in the form of the removal of indexation allowance on capital gains tax for some years now, which is very substantial over time.

[Craig Mackinlay]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for highlighting some of the fiscal drags that have been beneficial to the Treasury. In terms of asset price inflation, which has nothing to do with the activities of the taxpayer, other factors of low interest rates are involved. There are big windfalls coming towards the Treasury, in terms of IHT and capital taxes, which were never really forecast and are now bearing some substantial fruit. So I would have hoped that the Treasury Bench might have thought, “Where are those taxes going? Where are the other losses within the system across different Departments? Are there procurement gains? Are we really saying that the way the NHS is run today is the best way of running it?” I would have hoped that that could have formed the new pot to solve our social care problem.

I am very concerned that this is going to be wasted cash. I am very unimpressed and I will not be supporting the Government tonight.

Small Breweries Relief

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Liz Saville Roberts]

While we have a success story that we can all celebrate, we have to recognise how vulnerable it is at present. Again, in the interventions during this debate, we are hearing about the life’s work and the dream for many people in a constituency. They have this wonderful business, which is fully functional, and now it is faced with a threat. We will be hearing, I am sure, about the 150 small breweries that specifically fall into the remit of the change for the small breweries relief, but there is actually a wider concern about another aspect of the announcement that the Government made back in July, which I will touch on later, and that is the change from a percentage to a cash basis.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

This debate is fantastic, and we all have a story to tell of great breweries in our constituencies, many of which are fairly new because of this relief, without which they would never have happened. I think we would all salute the great work of CAMRA—the Campaign for Real Ale—and other organisations that have promoted this huge variety of very local, very flavoursome, fantastic ales that we would not otherwise have had. I remember—people have to be of a certain age to remember—the real scare stories of the whole market being dominated by the big boys. We should be encouraging these craft local companies that are wedded to our communities, and I am thinking particularly of the Ramsgate Brewery in my constituency, headed up by a fantastic head brewer, Eddie Gadd.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

We now have a vast choice, with a fantastic variety of beer on offer. We have the greatest number of breweries in the United Kingdom since the 1930s, and I think that is something to celebrate. The SBR has broken the monopoly of production, if not yet that of consumption. It has unleashed a pioneering spirit of independent brewery enterprise, which is something to which we can all raise our glasses, even the Tory party.

Covid-19: Future UK-EU Relationship

Lord Mackinlay of Richborough Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

I must say that I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman, as I would expect more of him than that. I say to Conservative Members that we must ensure that we have the tools at our disposal in the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. I spoke about the importance of the furlough scheme, and we welcomed that. We will welcome Government measures that help to deal effectively with the challenge we face. There is a harsh reality, however, for our industries in Scotland, such as the tourism industry, which is important in my constituency and that of the hon. Gentleman, as well as many others.

Effectively, we are facing three winters, and there is a truncated summer season. Our tourist industry barely exists over the winter months, and the last thing we need is to find that the UK Government are kicking the legs away from our industry by ending the furlough scheme early. The challenge for every Conservative Member of Parliament from Scotland is to ensure that if the UK Government do not provide the necessary support for our businesses and our people, those powers have to reside in the Scottish Parliament. Will Scottish Tory MPs stand with us and ensure that the Scottish Parliament has the powers it needs to do its job and protect the people of Scotland? I think we know the answer.

The Chancellor said that the UK is suffering because of covid-19, in common with many other economies around the world. However, the UK economy is likely to suffer worse damage from this crisis than any other country in the developed world. According to the OECD, a slump in the UK’s national income of 11.5% during 2020 will outstrip falls in France, Italy, Spain, Germany and the US. With the continued risk of a second wave hitting the economy and our communities in winter, the idea of the UK leaving the European Union at the same time is economic madness.

The outlook is bleak—there is no other way to look at it—and things are about to get much worse, unless the Government end their refusal to extend the Brexit transition period. Refusing to do so is the ultimate act of self-harm. With businesses fighting for survival, a bad deal or no deal will burden businesses with additional costs and red tape. Yesterday, the Financial Times told us that UK Government officials had indicated that a potential additional 215 million customer declarations will be required, at a cost of up to £7 billion. Businesses are fighting for survival, and the UK Government want to send them a bill for £7 billion. I wonder if the Prime Minister will put that on the side of a bus. That is not taking back control; that is self-induced madness.

We can stop this now. We can recognise that this is a price that we cannot pay in the middle of a health and an economic crisis. All it requires is political will. All it requires is leadership.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

Is it not the case that the injudicious dropping of a crisp packet would be enough for the Scottish National party to be asking for the extension of the implementation period or the scrapping of the whole project altogether? Might I remind the SNP—I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has the figures—that more people voted for Brexit in Scotland than have ever voted for the SNP?

[Ian Blackford]

Really? Is that the best that Thanet can send to the House of Commons? Heaven help them. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that we were told that if we stayed in the United Kingdom in 2014, Scotland would be respected and that we were to lead the UK. The question for him and for his Government is: why did they not respect the fact that Scotland voted to stay in the EU, with 62% of those living in Scotland voting to do so? At every opportunity in the past few years, the Conservatives, as they have been in every year since 1955, have been thoroughly rejected by the people of Scotland, and it is no wonder. We stood on a platform in the election in December about Scotland’s right to choose. The Tories said, “Say no to devolution. Say no to independence.” How did that go down? They lost more than half their seats and we increased our representation from 35 to 48. I think he has had his answer.