Finance (No. 2) Bill

James Murray Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 17th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful for the chance to respond on behalf of the Opposition in this Second Reading debate.

The Finance Bill follows last month’s Budget, in which the record of the Conservatives’ time in office was laid bare. After 14 years, the Conservatives have shown what they can deliver for the British people: higher taxes, falling living standards and lower economic growth. The truth is that after 14 years, they are out of time, out of ideas and out of touch with reality. They are out of time because whatever they say or try to do now, it is too late to repair the damage that they have done to the economy and to people’s standard of living. The Conservatives may now have implemented a reduction in national insurance—a cut that we support—but that comes amid a tax burden that is set to rise to its highest level in 70 years, and to rise in each and every year of the forecast period. The Government simply cannot escape the reality that under their plans, for every £5 they are giving back to families, they will be taking £10 in higher taxes. Giving with one hand and taking twice as much with the other—that is the reality of life under the Conservatives.

The Government are not just out of time, but out of ideas. In the Budget from which this Finance Bill came, the Conservatives performed what may be the biggest U-turn of this Parliament yet, and there is some tough competition on that. After years and years of the Conservatives opposing tooth and nail our plan to scrap non-dom status, the Chancellor stood in this Chamber last month and adopted our approach as his own. I recall the Financial Secretary’s immediate predecessor, the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), being a particularly passionate defender of non-dom status. I remember her declaring less than a year ago, during the Committee stage of a previous Finance Bill, that

“We have come to the conclusion that non-domiciled status is right”.––[Official Report, Finance (No. 2) Public Bill Committee, 16 May 2023; c. 44.]

How times change!

Despite the Government’s apparent U-turn, we have learned since the Budget through our careful analysis of the Government’s plans that loopholes remain in their approach to abolishing non-dom tax status. Alongside an unnecessary discount in year 1, there is a loophole that appears to have been intentionally designed to allow non-doms to stash money away in offshore trusts, so that they can avoid being subject to inheritance tax, as any other member of the public is. Those loopholes must be closed, because if a person makes their home and does their business in Britain, they should pay their taxes here, too. People will look at those loopholes and rightly conclude that despite the Budget’s U-turn, this Prime Minister just cannot bring himself to sort out the non-dom problem once and for all.

[Richard Fuller]

If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman is clutching at straws. There may be a few hundred million pounds here or there in what the Government propose doing to tighten up supposed loopholes, but as he is aware, the Labour party wants £28 billion spent on its green investment. Which taxes will he raise to pay for that?

[James Murray]

I fear that the hon. Gentleman is slightly out of date. Going into the general election, we have set out very clearly our plan to invest in the transition that we need in our energy supply and our economy, and how we would pay for that—through a strengthened windfall tax, alongside prudent investment. He may scoff at what we say about the non-dom tax loopholes, but we are talking about £1 billion in the first year and £2.6 billion over the course of the next Parliament. That money should go to our public services, rather than intentional loopholes allowing some people to get away with paying hundreds of millions of pounds less in tax.

The Conservatives are not just out of ideas, but out of touch with reality. They made that very clear in last month’s Budget, from which this Finance Bill arose. At the end of his Budget speech, the Chancellor made an astonishing £46 billion unfunded commitment—leaving a gaping hole in the public finances—when he pledged to abolish national insurance altogether. Since then, Government Ministers have had countless opportunities to row back from or U-turn on that commitment, but they have been determined not to. Earlier today, the Prime Minister had three chances to rule out cuts to the NHS, cuts to the state pension or tax rises to pay for his £46 billion unfunded tax cut. Each time, he refused to do so.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Murray]

I will in a second. It is quite astonishing that the Conservatives are content to go into the general election with a £46 billion black hole in their plans, and that they refuse to say whether that £46 billion commitment will be funded by tax rises elsewhere or cuts to spending. I give way to the hon. Gentleman, so that he can confirm exactly how the Government will pay for that £46 billion black hole.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I very rarely intervene from the Dispatch Box, but I cannot help myself this time. The hon. Gentleman and I have had multiple conversations about this. He cannot differentiate between an aspiration and a policy commitment. His £28 billion was a policy commitment; what we have laid out is an aspiration. They are two different things.

As for the hon. Gentleman’s scaremongering about the possible hit to pensions or the NHS, he knows full well that those suggestions are absolutely not true, because national insurance does not wholly pay for health, benefits, or indeed pensions. He is either scaremongering or exhibiting complete and utter financial illiteracy. Total spending on the NHS is over £160 billion, and welfare spending is over £260 billion, massively dwarfing the total amount raised by national insurance. He either does not understand that, or is irresponsibly scaremongering, because he has known for a long time that national insurance and other payments are topped up by general taxation. He should know better.

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his mini-speech. I feel I may have touched a nerve. He talks about people being scared; yes, I think people are scared when they hear the Government making a £46 billion unfunded spending commitment and not saying how they will pay for it. When the previous Prime Minister made an unfunded tax cut commitment of a similar order of magnitude, we know what havoc that caused in the economy, and people are still paying the price in higher mortgage payments and rent payments. I will just say to the hon. Gentleman that I gave him a chance to rule out cuts to the NHS or the state pension, or tax rises elsewhere, to pay for this black hole. I am not quite sure if he did that—maybe he has not got the line from his boss in No. 10 Downing Street—but the truth is that until the Government rule those things out, people will rightly worry about the impact his unfunded commitment will have on the economy.

The pledge the hon. Gentleman was speaking about sounds like exactly the sort of pledge that the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) would approve of, because it comes to almost exactly the same amount as her Government’s unfunded tax cuts. Of course, the previous Prime Minster has been touring the TV studios and talking to newspaper journalists in recent days, saying, among other things, that people who claim that she crashed the economy are

“either very stupid or very malevolent”.

I wonder if the Minister would like to intervene to say whether he shares that view. No? He is not leaping to his feet now. I would have thought he would; I would have thought that Treasury Ministers would want to put as much distance as possible between themselves and the previous Prime Minister. Instead, with their £46 billion unfunded commitment, they seem determined to be a tribute act. Frankly, whatever the previous Prime Minister says, people across Britain know what impact her time in office is having on all of us, as we face higher mortgages and higher rents as a direct consequence of her economic recklessness.

That is the context in which we are debating this Finance Bill. The context is one of a Government who are out of time, out of ideas and out of touch with reality, and of a country that is feeling the impact of 14 years of Conservative economic failure. Even a simple clause such as clause 2, which sets the main rates of income tax, highlights the impact on ordinary people of decisions taken by this Government. Although the basic and higher rates of income tax are unchanged by this Bill at 20% and 40%, the tax burden on working people is rising as a result of the income tax personal allowance and the higher rate threshold being frozen from 2021-22 to 2027-28. Those tax thresholds would ordinarily have risen this April, but instead they are in the middle of a six-year freeze. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, which I assume the Minister has respect for, these freezes will create 3.7 million extra taxpayers by 2028-29 and mean that 2.7 million more people will be paying the higher rate.

The truth is that, even taking into account any reductions to national insurance rates, the freezes in thresholds and the rises in council tax mean that by the end of the forecast period, the average family will still be £870 worse off. As the Resolution Foundation noted at the time of Budget, despite the reductions in national insurance, there will still be a net rise of £20 billion a year by 2028-29 in personal taxes. It pointed out that those over the state pension age, who do not benefit from national insurance cuts, will be particularly badly hit, and will face an average tax rise of £960 a year. The reality has been summed up by Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who said following the Budget:

“This remains a parliament of record tax rises.”

That is the record of the Conservatives in government.

[Dr Luke Evans]

There is a certain Leader of the Opposition who, when standing for their post, said that as part of their No. 1 pledge, which was for economic justice, they would increase income tax for the top 5% of earners and reverse corporation tax cuts. If the hon. Gentleman’s party was voted into government, would it stand by that pledge? That too would increase the tax burden significantly.

[James Murray]

I am sorry, but I did not quite follow the hon. Gentleman’s question. I can, however, respond to the general point that I think he was making. We have been very clear that this is a Parliament of record tax rises. The tax burden is set to be the highest in 70 years, and we think that the tax burden on working people should be lower. However, we would only ever support tax rises if they were responsible, and done on a basis of economic security and stability.

[Dr Evans]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Murray]

I will make some progress, because I have made that point quite clearly.

The tax burden has been pushed to a record high, and we have also seen a record number of changes and U-turns on tax rates and reliefs under this Government. That applies not just to personal taxation, but to tax rates and reliefs relating to businesses. Let us consider the Chancellor’s approach to the rate of corporation tax, which the Bill sets at 25% in clause 12. In July 2022, during his leadership bid, the current Chancellor pledged to cut the headline rate of corporation tax from 19% to 15%, yet when he became Chancellor just three months later, one of his first acts was to U-turn on what he inherited and to commit to raising that tax from 19% to 25%. He has been typical of the Conservatives in lacking any certainty, predictability or consistency, and we know how damaging that is to businesses that are trying to make investment decisions.

As the shadow Chancellor set out, if we win the next general election, we will bring back certainty by capping the headline rate of corporation tax at its current rate of 25% for the whole of the next Parliament. We would take action if tax changes in other advanced economies threatened to undermine UK competitiveness. We believe that the current rate of 25%—the lowest in the G7—strikes the right balance between what our public finances need and keeping our corporation tax competitive in the global economy. We also recognise the importance of stability and predictability in the reliefs available to businesses. We have seen a great deal of chopping and changing in capital allowances in recent years—indeed, this is a rare example of a Finance Bill from this Government that does not change the annual investment allowance or expensing regime.

We have made it clear that if we win the next general election, we will publish a road map for business taxation in our first six months in office, to give businesses the stability, predictability, and long-term plan that is so important to those making investment decisions. We have been pushing for a proper windfall tax on the profits of oil and gas companies operating in the North sea. The Government, despite initial opposition, U-turned on that and adopted some of our proposals with the introduction of the energy profits levy. Ahead of the general election, we have set out our plans to make the windfall tax stronger, and to raise more revenue to support our country’s energy transition, but it is also right that we give as much certainty as possible to those companies affected.

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a domestic oil and gas sector and offshore energy sector to deliver for the economy, to deliver energy security, and to bring in the investment needed for transition? After all, the North sea has powered our economy and our country for decades, and it can do so for decades to come.

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is right to say that it is important that we offer as much certainty as possible to those companies affected. We recognise that by its very nature, the windfall tax is expected to be a one-off levy in response to extraordinary profits, and will ultimately come to an end. We have set out that if we win the next general election, the energy profits levy will end no later than the end of the next Parliament. We also fully support the energy security investment mechanism in clause 19, and the signal that it gives, which helps with investor confidence in the UK’s offshore energy sector.

We will not oppose the Bill on Second Reading, and we look forward to detailed consideration of its clauses in Committee. However, the wider context in which the Bill has been published lays bare the record of the Conservatives in government. That record is one of falling living standards for people across Britian, and the highest tax burden in 70 years. It is one of economic stagnation, from a party that is out of ideas and has been unable to provide the stability that businesses need. It is also one of recklessness with the public finances, both when the previous Prime Minister crashed the economy, and now that the current Prime Minister has made a £46 billion unfunded pledge to scrap national insurance. It is time to turn the page and turn a corner—time to give British people the chance to change our country’s Government by calling a general election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

My right hon. Friend has voiced the concern that I know will rest on the conscience of my hon. Friend the Minister, and he is right to add that. May I put a second conscientious point to the Minister—this point was also made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray)—which relates to the scoring for contaminated blood? That was not included in the Budget, which will have disappointed a considerable number of Members of Parliament from all parts of the House. It would be helpful if the Chancellor came forward with some view on that. Will my hon. Friend look at that?

Thirdly, will the Minister be encouraged by the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and his analysis of the charges imposed on the Treasury by the Bank of England as a result of the quantitative tightening policies? The UK’s policies on quantitative tightening are exceptional. Few other central banks—many of which indulged in the bizarre quantitative easing policy 15 years ago, after the financial crash under the last Labour Government—do it, and it is now a real charge that has real effects on the real economy in the country. The exceptional way in which we are treating quantitative tightening charges—essentially, we take them on the books, the Treasury gets charged for it, and it has to go into the scoring that the OBR and others do—does not go on in other European countries. There is discretion on how it can be put across, and in the US the charges are absorbed but the Government are not charged. That is an important policy point, and I would be interested to hear whether the Minister would accept an amendment on that in Committee, although I think not.

Prosaically, or simply, HMRC has been in the headlines for not answering phone calls and for saying it would go on holiday. I am pleased that the Minister reversed that straightaway, and I know many taxpayers will be pleased about that. Many who will be looking to fill in their self-assessment forms will be surprised that they cannot download form SA100—they have to call HMRC to download a copy, whether or not they want to file it by paper. That seems a little odd, if HMRC’s phonelines are under pressure. Will the Minister, who has been responsive on points to date, look into that?

I will turn to the shadow Minister’s speech—I like him too. As he in his own mind “prepares for government”, he and his colleagues may wish to get a better grasp on reality. When he rightly talks about the importance of setting clarity for investment, it is important that those looking at investment think that those in charge of the public finances know what is going on. He talked about record tax rises under this Government. Let me ask him these questions. Did he disagree with funding of the furlough programmes? Did he disagree with the energy price support? Did he disagree with the increase in funding for the NHS? Did he disagree with record numbers of police officers? If he did not disagree with any of those, he would recognise, if he had a grasp on reality, that he would have to fund those through increased taxation or increased—[Interruption.] He has an answer, so would he like to come in? [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker, I thought he had an answer.

[James Murray]

The hon. Gentleman is asking me what I disagree with. I disagree with the low growth that has been true of this Government. I disagree with billions of pounds being wasted in covid fraud and in other ways by the Government. I disagree with how the Government are now overseeing the highest tax burden in 70 years and have no plan to get the economy growing. That is what I disagree with.

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Member mentioned growth rates, fraud and the record tax burden. I was making a point about the record tax burden, and he cannot respond to that challenge by repeating that he is concerned about it. He talked about low growth—he should go to Germany or France, which have lower growth than the UK. He should go to the majority of G7 countries, where he will find lower growth than in the UK. He is mistaking—[Interruption.] Would he like to intervene again? No.

I am trying to be helpful, obviously. The hon. Member and the shadow Treasury team wish to be taken seriously, but he will know that the points about growth are difficult to work through, with western economies not growing as fast as they have done. The UK is growing faster on average than other countries, and he needs to give some credit for that rather than just say that low growth is the case.

More importantly, if the hon. Member and the Labour party believe in furlough, the energy price schemes, the record increase in NHS funding and more police—they supported most of those programmes—they must recognise that those must be paid for in government, and that means hard choices. What the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have done is make those hard choices. Making people feel bad about historical hard choices is not a policy for a future Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

We seem to be engaging in an unexpected back-and-forth. The hon. Gentleman did not mention covid fraud. As he might know, we have set out our plans for a covid corruption commissioner. Would he support that—yes or no?

[Richard Fuller]

Of course, everyone supports cracking down on fraud, and I would be very happy—[Interruption.] If I may, I would be happy to look at the Labour party’s specific proposals. But the hon. Member will also know that when the Labour party talks about fraud, particularly when it comes to personal protective equipment and the furlough programmes, it conflates two things. For example, with the coronavirus loan programmes, Labour is conflating moneys that have not repaid because businesses have gone bust, or because companies have not paid them back yet, with moneys that have been lost fraudulently. When I look at his proposals, I want to ensure that when Labour talks about the amounts that have been lost, they relate to actual examples of fraud and not to the ways in which, in a difficult situation where people’s businesses could have been closed, money was given out by the Treasury to others. If that is the case, I am happy to look at that.

My second point to the Opposition—before I get on to what I want to say—is that I hold no torch for the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), but when the hon. Member and his colleagues talk about crashing the economy and about people’s mortgage rates, as I think the Leader of the Opposition did at Prime Minister’s questions, may I gently urge them to look at the Bernanke review that has just been completed on Bank of England forecasting? That has a number of important points about how the Bank of England could improve its forecasting. It also compares interest rates for the seven central banks that Ben Bernanke, the former head of the US Federal Reserve, has used as his comparators—in figure 12 in the report. If the hon. Member looks at that, he will see that UK interest rates in 2019 were in the middle of the pack, UK interest rates in 2020 were in the middle of the pack, UK interest rates in 2021 were in the middle of the pack, UK interest rates in 2022 were in the middle of the pack and UK interest rates in 2023 were in the middle of the pack. UK interest rates as we enter 2024 are in the middle of the pack. It is simply not true to say that something exceptional happened to UK interest rates in any part of this Parliament. Again, if the hon. Member wishes to be taken seriously in government, he needs to get a grip on reality, not on fantasy.

I will now turn, if I may, to the things that I would like to say. [Laughter.] I did promise the Whips that I would take only 10 minutes, so I promise to take only 10 minutes, from now. Clause 12 sets the corporation tax rate. I see my friend the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Alistair Strathern) in his place on the Opposition Benches. I think that both he and I are pleased that Government and Opposition Front-Bench Members have made clear their commitments for full expensing. That is particularly important to the people of Bedfordshire because there is a potential investment pending in his constituency. I would like to put on record our thanks to the two Front-Bench teams for setting out the clear future framework for how that will work.

Let me turn to income tax rates in clause 2, because it is important to look at the history. As my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned, the record of successive Conservative Governments from 2010 for working people in this country is strong. He mentioned the increase in the personal allowance from £6,475 in 2010 to £12,570 this financial year. That is a 21% real increase. However, my hon. Friend did not mention the change in the minimum wage, which has gone up from £5.80 in 2010 to the living wage now of £11.44. That is a 23% real increase in wages. Higher wages for working people and lower taxes for those on lowest incomes is a very strong record.

However, my hon. Friend needs to look at the higher rate threshold, because in 2010 it was £37,400, and now it is £37,700. In today’s money, the 2010 amount would be set at £59,800. In essence, there has been a 37% decrease in earnings when people hit the higher threshold. It may not be popular politically, but economically such a substantial differentiation in the way we tax people on middle and high incomes from those on low incomes has long-term implications. After the Budget, people who have retired, have been thrifty and saved money and have a private pension now find themselves complaining that, although they are getting their increase in the basic pension—or maybe not—they are being dragged into the higher rate of taxation. Successive Conservative Governments have rewarded work—they have wanted people to work hard, be entrepreneurial, and grow their businesses and the economy—so please, can we look at the ways in which that particular threshold should change?

Quite rightly, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have indicated that they wish to simplify taxation on working people. That is completely consistent with the long-run approach of the Conservatives to taxation on work. The aspiration to reduce national insurance is an excellent way of looking at that. Unlike the Opposition, I would say that there is a difficulty in politics of finding times to make quite significant changes. This may be such a time—I know that Ministers will be looking at this—partially because we have quite significant issues of overall taxation that we need to reduce, but there is the opportunity for other reasons as well. Reallocation of existing taxes is easier when the tax burden is exceptionally high. I am a low-tax Conservative. I recognise, unlike some, that when we buy things, we have to pay taxes on them. But we know that this tax rate is unusually high, and we know that we will reduce that tax burden. It is a propitious time to look at ways of reducing national insurance contributions over the next five years.

The Budget forecasts fiscal drag to be £28 billion to £33 billion per annum for the next three or four years. There is an ethical and moral case for wanting to give back more money to people by reducing national insurance contributions. However, my proposal is for the Government to consider not that national insurance reductions should go directly into pay packets, but that national insurance contributions should be added to people’s long-term savings through compulsory savings schemes. Many countries have recognised that the idea of state pensions being based upon the “never, never” is not a secure way to provide for long-term pensions. We have never really grasped the nettle in this country—Singapore did it right at the start and Australia did it in the 1990s. There is an opportunity for us to build on the work that Sir Stephen Webb did in the coalition Government through changes to national insurance contributions. That would ensure that working people are the first generation to have a truly secure pension that is their money, where they do not have to rely on the vagaries of what a particular Chancellor of the day might do to pensions, and they would have only one tax on their wages during their career. Finagling people in other parties like to increase taxes, and having two taxes to increase gives them more flexibility. An opportunity would be provided to extend the savings stake—the way that people save for things—beyond providing for their retirement, so that they could, as they do in Singapore, put money into their first home. By looking in a new way at how we treat citizens in this country, we could move towards a savings state and away from a socialist never-never state. I leave my hon. Friend the Minister to consider those comments.