Exiting the European Union (Excise)

James Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2021 Commons Chamber

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

There are countless examples of this Government leaving it until the last minute to make decisions about what arrangements would be in place following the end of the EU exit transition period. The trade deal with the EU was published only on Christmas eve and considered by Parliament on 30 December, leaving businesses frustrated and unable to prepare fully until the very last minute.

It seems even more frustrating and inexcusable for the Government to have left it so late to make arrangements for the post-transition period when the issues have been known about for years and were not the subject of any ongoing negotiations. Today’s regulations include a prime example The Government have had more than four years since the referendum to get this right, yet they announced their decision to end VAT-free retail both at airports and within Great Britain for all international travellers less than four months before it took effect, in the middle of a pandemic and with no plans to mitigate the economic damage. That is sadly typical of the panicked, last-minute approach that this Government, and in particular this Chancellor, have taken at every turn in recent months. People working in shops, airports, manufacturing and hospitality are going to be carrying the can for the Chancellor’s irresponsible choices.

We accept that, to comply with World Trade Organisation rules, the Government needed to make changes to the regime covering VAT-free shopping; they had to amend the approach to VAT-free and duty-free shopping so that the same rules would apply to both EU and non-EU visitors. As the UK can no longer distinguish between EU and non-EU visitors to Great Britain, the Government had a choice of two options for VAT-free shopping: Ministers could amend the VAT and retail export scheme and VAT-free retail at airports by either extending them or abolishing them for all travellers—and they chose the latter.

The decision has come as a body blow to jobs across the country in sectors desperately hoping that they might be able to start recovering from the impact of covid later this year. Clearly, the frontline jobs immediately affected are those in city centre or shopping village high-value retail, where international visitors make use of the retail export scheme, and in international airports around the country, including Heathrow, where many of my constituents are employed and where travellers make use of the relief on VAT on goods purchased airside. But it is not just those jobs that are set to be hit. Knock-on effects of the changes will threaten jobs in the factories and manufacturers of the goods that tourists come to buy, and in the hospitality sector, as the UK might expect fewer tourists as a result of the withdrawal of the concession. That impact on jobs, of course, comes amid the impact of covid-19, and many are in sectors with a disproportionately high proportion of young and BAME people relative to the wider population.

Given the wide-ranging impact on jobs, it is shocking that the Government did not fully consider the jobs impact of the change before taking their decision. If they were serious about protecting jobs, they would have looked closely at the wider impact of those changes across all sectors affected and throughout every part of our country, yet there is no evidence that they did so, and many of the assumptions in the calculations that they did carry out have been questioned by people respected in the industry. In its reasoning for taking the decision, the Treasury relied on a number of calculations and assumptions about the impact of the change, more detail about which they included in a technical note issued to stakeholders. There is deep concern among stakeholders that many of the crucial figures were flawed, as the Government overestimated the cost of the option of extending the retail export scheme to EU visitors and underestimated the negative impact of ending the scheme for others.

Those affected and their representative organisations, such as Value Retail, have questioned the Treasury’s assumption that non-EU visitors spend the same amount of money as EU visitors, thereby producing flawed calculations of the cost of the alternative course of action, which was extending the retail export scheme to all. They also question the assumption that the low value of many discounts means that they are insufficient to change visitor behaviour, so removing the retail export scheme will not affect how much people spend or their decisions about spending time in the UK.

Given our concern about the impact on jobs, I wrote to the Office for Budget Responsibility ahead of the Chancellor’s spending review in November 2020, asking it to scrutinise the figures and assumptions that the Treasury was using to justify its decision to end the VAT retail export scheme and to consider its wider impact on jobs. The OBR’s reply appeared to undermine what Ministers have been saying. For example, in reply to one of my written parliamentary questions, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, who will be responding in this debate, said that

“the OBR also looked at this package in the round when assessing the indirect impact on the economy”.

However, in its reply to me the OBR seemed to play down the extent of its analysis, confirming that it had not considered the indirect effects of ending the VAT retail export scheme on jobs. Furthermore, it said:

“our remit prevents us from considering impacts on disadvantaged groups or particular geographical areas”.

It seems clear that, despite his or his Ministers’ protestations, the Chancellor went into this decision with his eyes closed: yet again, he failed to consider the impact of his irresponsible decisions on people’s jobs.

My question to the Minister today is direct and I would welcome a direct answer. We know that the Government’s decision to end VAT-free shopping will have a significant impact on jobs. It is also clear that the Government took the decision without fully knowing what the impact on jobs would be after the new arrangements were put in place. As the measure has now come into force and analysis of it no longer has to be based on assumptions alone, I would like to ask the Minister to commit the Treasury to reviewing the impact of the changes to VAT-free shopping on jobs across different sectors and across different parts of the country, and to report back to Parliament ahead of the March Budget. If the Minister will not commit to doing so today, I would be grateful if he committed to raise it with the Chancellor and to ask him to update the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

The truth is that this pandemic has had a desperately difficult effect for the whole of the UK economy, and for families and people across our country and regions. It is appropriate to recognise the totality of the difficulty we find ourselves in. It is true that many women have found themselves in the position of either caring for home schooling or vulnerable individuals. They are supported and protected through the schemes we have put in place. Of course, over and above those schemes, we have also put in place significant amounts of support for remote education, laptops and councils to help vulnerable individuals.

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

Earlier this month, the shadow Chancellor successfully called on the Chancellor to make it clear that working parents and others can be furloughed owing to childcare responsibilities. Most employers will want to do the right thing, but where an employer is refusing to follow the guidance and offer a parent furlough for childcare reasons, can the Minister tell me who the parent should report that to and what action will be taken?

[Jesse Norman]

As the hon. Member will know, furlough is an arrangement reached between companies and their employees. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Government do not have direct involvement in that. What they say is that where an agreement can be reached between the two sides we will support them, as laid out in one of the most generous schemes available in any country around the world. As I said, that is just one part of a much wider panoply of support for people at risk through the pandemic.

Equitable Life

James Murray Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Commons Chamber

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

As we have heard today, it has been more than 20 years since the House of Lords ruling rendered the Equitable Life Assurance Society financially unviable, and it has been over a decade since the then Chancellor announced the Equitable Life payment scheme to compensate policyholders who had lost out as a result of the scandal at that company, yet even after so many years, thousands of Equitable Life policyholders do not feel they have been treated fairly.

The Equitable Members Action Group continues to campaign tirelessly on their behalf, and during this afternoon’s debate—I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing it—we have heard Members from all sides passionately setting out the injustice that so many policyholders feel. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) powerfully set out the upsetting case of the 84-year-old pharmacist she represents as an example of how the scandal has affected people living in constituencies across the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) spoke of the human impact on her constituent, an 89-year-old living with dementia, whose life has been hit by this scandal, alongside nurses, teachers, shop workers and so many others over many years.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) emphasised how long the scandal has been going on, and spoke about the crucial importance of transparency, which I will return to. The importance of transparency was also underscored by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), who spoke about the costs of the scandal on the plans and dreams of those affected, and the ongoing impact of current cases such as London Capital & Finance. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) spoke about a 91-year-old in her constituency and others who invested in good faith but have gone for decades without a satisfactory conclusion.

It is crucial that we learn lessons from what happened at Equitable Life, including about the wider importance of having a well-regulated financial services sector, as the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said. In recent months, the cases we have seen at London Capital & Finance and Brewin Dolphin underline the importance of the Government’s doing more to ensure that people are well protected in the first place.

On Equitable Life itself, the issue at the heart of the disagreement over the past decade has been how the payments to the vast majority of its policyholders have been determined. As we know, that has generated intense disagreement with the Government over their approach, and as today’s motion makes clear, there is a further issue of transparency and trust. Many policyholders lack confidence that those payments have been calculated fairly.

In October 2020, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), the shadow Chancellor, wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, asking for the Treasury to set out clearly the basis on which it had calculated the payments that had been made to policyholders and to ask what assessment his officials had made of the overall accuracy of the scheme. In his reply, the Chancellor claimed that when the Equitable Life payment scheme was operational, it was fully transparent, and that its calculations methodology was published in full. He claimed that the Treasury had worked with the Equitable Members Action Group and others to produce a simplified explanation for policyholders.

Unfortunately for the Chancellor, the Equitable Members Action Group does not share his assessment. It contends that the Treasury refused full disclosure and hid behind commercial confidentiality. The group had to attempt to reverse-engineer the calculations, and it remains unsatisfied that payments can be shown to be accurate. It has presented cases of policyholders who received an amount substantially less than they were due. In one of the most extreme examples, which the hon. Member for Harrow East drew attention to, it quotes a case where the Treasury calculated a policyholder’s loss at £17, only for that to be revised to £8,661 when challenged. More widely, the group cites a freedom of information request that revealed that, where compensation had been recalculated following complaints, it resulted in an increased payment to the policyholder in every case—on average, by a factor of three.

A report of the Public Accounts Committee, under its former Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), concluded:

“Policyholders have struggled to understand how their payments have been calculated and cannot, therefore, check that the amount that they receive is correct.”

In a letter to the Committee’s current Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), the permanent secretary to the Treasury restated the Government position. He said:

“no errors in the actual methodology have been found, including when the Equitable Members Action Group’s own actuary examined the methodology.”

Again, the group does not share the Treasury’s assessment. It contends that the actuary acting on its behalf was denied the information he needed to validate the methodology used, and he could not verify the calculations for one third of the sample policies studied.

It is the Government’s responsibility not only to do the right thing but to earn people’s trust that they will do so. It is clear from the continuing challenge presented by Members of Parliament on behalf of Equitable Life policyholders today that that is not yet the case. I find it hard to disagree with the Equitable Members Action Group’s view that the Treasury’s refusal to be fully transparent only increases suspicion that something is wrong.

After such a long-running disagreement, we believe that a transparent approach is the best way forward, and that it is the only way to find a way forward that is widely trusted and accepted. We therefore look forward to the response from the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on this important call to establish a joint inquiry into the accuracy of payments made to victims of the Equitable Life scandal.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and apologise to him that the timer has been put on. Can the timer please be taken off by whoever is controlling it? It is very distracting and it was not fair to Mr Murray to have those numbers apparently telling him he had to stop when he did not have to stop. I am sorry for that, but these technical hitches sometimes just happen.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

As my hon. Friend will be aware, a long and detailed review process has been conducted by Sir Amyas Morse. It is, of course, the individual’s responsibility to ensure the accuracy of their tax returns and to understand the consequences of their decisions, although of course the Government very much sympathise with people who have been caught in that position. My hon. Friend may have noticed that we have been taking very vigorous action against promoters of tax avoidance schemes—most recently, in an announcement we made last week, HMRC and the Advertising Standards Authority are getting together to crack down on misleading promoting of tax avoidance schemes.

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

Following the loan charge review, the Government promised in March that this year would bring both legislation and the announcement of additional policy measures against those who promote tax avoidance schemes. As neither has happened, will the Minister confirm when the promised changes will become law?

[Jesse Norman]

We will make an announcement about the response to the Amyas Morse review shortly.

Covid-19: Disparate Impact

James Murray Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

We have worked with the covid comms hub in the Cabinet Office and ministerial colleagues to build on the way public health messages are delivered effectively to ethnic minority people. In addition to the central marketing campaign, we have spent approximately £4 million to reach ethnic minority people through tailored messaging, strategically chosen channels and trusted voices. Additional funding and resources from the central campaign are also used to reach communities in specific regions, supporting local authorities to deliver bespoke translated material on request.

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

On 3 May, Ranjith Chandrapala, a bus driver from Hanwell in my constituency, became one of the many BAME frontline workers to die of covid-19. Since then, I have asked the Chancellor and the Transport Secretary to extend the Government’s covid-19 life assurance scheme for families of health and care workers to others, including the families of bus drivers, such as Ranjith’s. Unfortunately, I have received only promises that support for key workers will continue to be reviewed. As the Minister mentioned that today’s report highlights a significant occupational exposure, will she commit to meet me and Ranjith’s family to discuss how we can ensure that this scheme is extended?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and share the deep sympathy he has for the suffering of his constituents. All of us, across the House, are seeing this. I have had cases such as this in my constituency and they are devastating and heartbreaking. I know that many Members across the House have lots of suggestions for specific interventions we can make. I do not stand here just as an Equalities Minister and a Treasury Minister. We have said we are going to do whatever it takes, but we cannot do everything that everyone likes. If he would write to me on the issue—I have not had sight of this—perhaps I will be able to provide him with further information.

Economic Update

James Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is, in the long term, the market economy that will provide the growth and prosperity we need. It will provide the jobs that we need, but it is important that we provide support to those businesses in the short term, given the disruption they have faced, and I know his local businesses and many others will welcome the jobs retention bonus to help reward and incentivise them to do the right thing, stand by their workers at this time and bring them back, and look forward to a brighter future.

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

On 25 June, a Treasury direction in relation to the coronavirus job retention scheme made it clear:

“Integral to the purpose of the CJRS”

is that the grant

“is used by the employer to continue the employment of employees”.

Will the Chancellor therefore confirm that British Airways would be liable to pay back any taxpayers’ money used to furlough staff the company chose to put on notice of redundancy during that furlough period?

[Rishi Sunak]

Procedures are in place for any employee to talk to HMRC if they believe that they themselves have been the victim of fraud or that the company for which they work has not acted in a way in keeping with the guidance. I urge any employees of any company who feel that that has happened to take up the matter via the HMRC hotline, the details of which are online.

Covid-19: Economic Package

James Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 12th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

Manufacturing organisations in particular were keen to have the flexibility to bring employees back in shifts on a part-time basis while being able to furlough them for the remainder of the time as manufacturers ramp up operations, so I am pleased that we could deliver that flexibility today for the second part of the scheme. I think that that will be valuable to manufacturers in my hon. Friend’s constituency and help them get back up to speed as quickly as possible in a way that they can afford as well.

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

Ranjith Chandrapala lived in Hanwell in my constituency, and he drove the 92 bus until three weeks ago, before he died of covid-19, leaving behind a loving family, including his daughter, Leshie. A week before Ranjith died, the Government announced a life assurance scheme for the families of health and care workers on the frontline during the covid-19 outbreak. Will the Chancellor commit to extending the scheme to other frontline workers and, in particular, to the families of bus drivers such as Ranjith?

[Rishi Sunak]

My heart goes out to the family of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent for what they have suffered. They, like many others up and down the country, are losing loved ones who are serving on the frontline. They deserve nothing but our admiration, respect and gratitude. I know that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary has put in place a scheme to help those families who have lost loved ones during this crisis.

Covid-19

James Murray Excerpts

Monday 11th May 2020 Commons Chamber

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

It is the first responsibility of Government to keep people safe and during this crisis that responsibility is acute. What the Government say and do each day has profound consequences, whether that is being too slow with lockdown measures and PPE, or creating confusion with ill-considered announcements.

If lockdown measures are to be eased, it is critical that the Government keep the rate of infection as low as possible. In their plan published today, they acknowledge the role that mass testing and contact tracing play in suppressing transmission, but we have been a long way from the comprehensive, effective and, as the Prime Minister put it, world-leading system we need. The plan mentions targets of 100,000 tests a day last month and 200,000 tests a day this month, yet there has not been a single day in May when the number of people tested has been above 70,000. The plan also mentions a role for local authority public health services, but it feels far too much like an afterthought. The Government have focused all their energy on a new national call centre, rather than listening to local authorities, experts, and MPs, who have implored them to put local teams at the heart of those efforts. The Government plan also mentions controlling the outbreak in care homes. The importance of that cannot be overstated, as this Government’s failure to protect people who live and work in care homes is fast becoming one of their greatest failings of the covid-19 crisis so far.

Last week, my team and I spoke to care homes across my constituency. One care worker told us how traumatic it had been for their colleagues to lose so many residents. They told us that they would usually expect to suffer around three deaths a year in their home, but that they have lost twice as many people in a single fortnight of this crisis. The people we spoke to were deeply upset with the Government and with the lack of recognition for care, and they felt that they had been in a crisis for far longer than since coronavirus. One worker said to us that their colleagues were tired and upset, but that they had been for years. That is the truth at the heart of this crisis.

This outbreak has laid bare the deep-seated inequalities in our country. It is hitting those people hardest who cannot work from home, such as low-paid care staff, hospital cleaners and bus drivers. It is hitting hardest those who do not have a decent home, such as those living with overcrowding or sofa-surfing and those who are homeless.

Once we get through the immediate crisis, we must not let the Government forget those workers who are risking everything to keep the country safe. We must not forget those receiving care who are paying such a dreadful price, trade unions that are playing a crucial role in protecting people’s jobs, BAME communities, who are suffering more than anyone else, and councils and local volunteers who are getting food delivered to those who need it most. When we begin to emerge from this crisis, making our economy work for people who do the essential jobs in society, building a new generation of council housing, and ending the austerity that has caused so much harm to our public services, will be more important than ever.