Cost of Living Increases

Debate between Ian Murray and Mike Kane

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Do I understand rightly that Labour’s fully costed windfall tax on the energy companies is opposed by both governing parties in Scotland?

[Ian Murray]

It certainly is. To correct the Minister—I hope it is not the third time already; I am on only the second page of my speech—she assumed that the SNP motion backed a windfall tax on oil and gas, but it is actually the opposite. The motion is not to back a windfall tax on oil and gas, but to back a windfall tax on everything but oil and gas—maybe the SNP can clarify that later.

This Chancellor is also presiding over the largest hit to disposable income since the second world war. How are any of those policies helping, alongside, as we have already heard, the largest ever overnight reduction in support for the poorest households through the reduction in universal credit and the scrapping of the triple lock for pensioners? They are making people poorer and taking more money out of their pockets at a time when everything is going up—a cocktail of Government decisions that mean the discussions around the dinner table for many families are about the worry of paying the rent, the mortgage or the energy bill or for the weekly shop or to fill the car they need for work.

Families face a perfect storm of the Government’s own making: rising taxes, rising bills and rising inflation, and lower wages in real terms. This is all the result of over a decade of Conservative mismanagement of the economy. They like to think they have been in government only since 2019, but they have now been in place for 12 years. The policies of a succession of Tory Chancellors have created a low-wage, low-growth insecure economy.

I want to talk for a minute or two about the Scottish Government’s role in this. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) rightly said when he moved the motion, the Scottish Government have a stake in this and I am grateful that the SNP has brought this debate to the House. The SNP is correct to point out the lack of action by the UK Government in trying to tackle this, as we have all discussed, but it is not an observer in this crisis as it is in government and can also help.

Scots are facing the prospect of higher council tax bills, because for over a decade the Scottish Government have decimated local government funding and spent 15 years promising to scrap the council tax—a promise that they continue to break at every election.

Finance Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and Mike Kane

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mike Kane]

The best organisations offer benefits in kind, which can be shares to their employees. I and many in the House have no problem with that.

This measure is wrong for business and wrong for employee-business relations, and I urge all hon. Members to support the new clause.

[Ian Murray]

I apologise to the House for not being present at the beginning of the debate. The previous debate finished slightly earlier so there was a clash with something else that I had in my diary. However, I want to make a few comments on this because it harks back to new clause 14, which we debated earlier. All we are looking for in new clause 11 is some transparency on this policy. We know it was introduced with great fanfare by the Chancellor at the Conservative party conference last October when he said:

“Workers of the world unite.”

The conclusion to the workers of the world uniting was that everyone united against this policy.

This is incredibly relevant to the Finance Bill because it has created a significant tax loophole. On new clause 14 on the 50p tax rate and the need for transparency on how much tax that takes, the Government said clearly that 45p brings in more tax at the top rate than 50p, which brings in less because of tax avoidance. In this case, we are looking at the biggest tax avoidance measure we can get. It has been described by the Institute of Fiscal Studies as a billion-pound tax lollipop on the table. If we are serious about tackling such tax avoidance, it would be great for transparency, not just for the House but for the country, if a report were produced showing take up and the consequences of that.

Because it is such an important prospect, we need to look at what the Chancellor tried to do in his conference speech. We will end up in the situation where people are able to sell their rights for a few pounds that might be worth nothing. That is not the kind of working society that we want. It is not the kind of partnership that we want between employers and employees and trade unions, whereby people can sell their rights for maternity pay, unfair dismissal, and all those rights referred to by Beecroft in his report for the Prime Minister. We now have a fire-at-will culture, which does nothing to dispel the Government’s move towards a hire-and-fire culture with this proposal. There are the hallmarks of another tax avoidance scheme. Why on earth would we want to produce a scheme that not only allows people to sell their rights and not be covered by any employment rights, but to be in a situation whereby those at the top end of businesses can use these mechanisms to avoid paying tax? I hope that the Minister can address some of those serious concerns when he replies.

I cannot understand why the Government would not accept new clause 11 if they are so confident that this measure will be well used, resulting in a transformation in entrepreneurship, with people hiring more and more employees because they do not have what the Government would call the burden of employee relations. Why would they not want to produce a report showing how many people are using the measure? I do not understand why they do not want to produce a report showing the impact on the Treasury coffers, through capital gains tax and any other tax receipts that might be lost.

It is important for the Government to have confidence in their proposals. The Chancellor was confident when he announced it with great fanfare. I am not sure whether it will have any take-up, because of the way it has been presented and the message it sends out. Justin King, the former chief executive of Sainsbury’s, said that it sends out a poor message. Many chief executives and business owners say that it sends out such a poor message on the partnership we want in the workplace.

Therefore, if the Government wish to have confidence in their own policies, it is only right that they agree to new clause 11, bring forward the report setting out the take-up and the data collected on the scheme and publish further reports every year. If the scheme is denying people their rights at work at the same time as denying the Treasury valuable income, this House should know about it and be able to debate it so that it can hold the Government properly to account.