Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Taiwan) Order 2021

James Murray Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2021 General Committees

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

Thank you for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Opposition, Ms Rees, as we consider this order on double taxation relief and international tax enforcement with the territory of Taiwan. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again.

The schedule to the order contains a protocol that amends an agreement in relation to the territory of Taiwan dealing with the elimination of double taxation with respect to capital gains tax, corporation tax and income tax, the prevention of tax avoidance and evasion and international tax enforcement. The agreement aims to eliminate the double taxation of income gains arising in one territory and paid to residents of another territory. As we have heard, that is done by allocating the taxing rights that each territory has under its domestic law over the same income and gains, and by providing relief from double taxation. There are also specific measures combating discriminatory tax treatment and providing for assistance in international tax enforcement.

As we can see, the amendments to the agreement are relatively minor and technical in nature, mostly updating terminology to bring about consistency with similar bilateral agreements with other states and territories. Various articles within the schedule replace outdated terminology, and further technical amendments are added to the schedule, relating to persons covered, taxes covered, general definitions, residents, dividends, interest, royalties, capital gains, limitation of relief, non-discrimination, mutual agreement procedure and exchange of information. An article relating to entitlement of benefits is also added to the agreement.

The Opposition will not oppose this order. It is, of course, important that bilateral agreements concerning taxation are clear and up to date, and that revenue generated from taxation is neither inappropriately drawn nor inappropriately allocated. Similarly, we support the measure to reduce the administrative burden on Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which would otherwise have to process rebate applications.

While we are on the matter of international taxation, however, I would like to briefly ask the Minister, as this is the first time we have had the chance to discuss the matter, her view on the global minimum corporation tax rate that the OECD and G20 recently agreed. In her response, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether 15% is the rate the Government had hoped for, or whether they had hoped it might be higher or lower.

[The Chair]

I am not sure that question is quite in scope, but it is at the Minister’s discretion whether she responds to it.

Value Added Tax (Distance Selling and Miscellaneous Amendments No. 2) Regulations 2021 Customs Tariff (Establishment and Suspension of Import Duty) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021

James Murray Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 General Committees

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

Thank you, Ms Rees, for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Opposition as we consider the two statutory instruments.

The Value Added Tax (Distance Selling and Miscellaneous Amendments No. 2) Regulations 2021 amends certain provisions in the Value Added Tax Act 1994 relating to the application of VAT on goods in Northern Ireland, pursuant to the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Northern Ireland-EU protocol. The Opposition can see that this SI makes a minor correction and goes on to make amendments to provisions set out in the Finance Act 2021 relating to the application of two new VAT schemes in Northern Ireland.

The intra-community distance-selling OSS scheme and the IOSS scheme seek to simplify VAT accounting for the sale of goods direct to consumers by suppliers based in the EU and by suppliers who import goods into the EU for sale. Other amendments to the 1994 Act involve the rectification of minor errors, the removal of superfluous wording and edits to bring about consistency in terminology across the relevant schedules.

Finally, we see that this instrument makes amendments to confirm that certain references to Great Britain are also applicable to the Isle of Man. This addresses the issue and risk of double taxation of goods moved between the Isle of Man and Northern Ireland. The Opposition will, of course, not oppose this instrument, as it is important that regulations are clear, and it is right that these errors are corrected through the SI. For the sake of clarity, however, can the Financial Secretary set out what, if any, negative impact the legislation has had in its unamended state?

The Customs Tariff (Establishment and Suspension of Import Duty) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 are made in relation to part 1 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 and seeks to amend the Customs Tariff (Suspension of Import Duty Rates) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 and the Customs Tariff (Establishment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. This second instrument we consider today amends the definition of

“Suspensions of Import Duty Rates Document”

in the Customs Tariff (Suspension of Import Duty Rates) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 to refer to a revised document: the “Tariff Suspension Document”.

The Customs Tariff (Establishment and Suspension of Import Duty) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 goes on to amend a typographical error and revise the definition of

“Tariff of the United Kingdom”

to refer to another separately published document, which contained a number of errors and inconsistencies. We will not oppose this instrument, as it is important that tariffs are applied accurately and fairly and that the law concerning those tariffs is unambiguous and that its language is appropriate and accurate.

I have sat in Committees considering statutory instruments that sought to amend errors, and I dare say that I may again. Impact notes routinely describe a negligible impact arising from such amendments, but I am concerned that errors keep piling up. I would be grateful if the Financial Secretary could consider committing to a cumulative impact study of all these errors, perhaps to be reported when we inevitably next sit in this Committee room to correct further errors.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

James Murray Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th November 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move the amendment in my name and those of hon. and right hon. Friends including the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves):

That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Finance (No. 2) Bill because it does nothing to help people who are struggling with the rising costs of living, who are being hit by the cut to universal credit, or who are facing a rise in National Insurance Contributions and a freeze in the Income Tax Personal Allowance from next April, because it nonetheless cuts taxes for banking companies and derives from a Budget that will see the tax burden rise to its highest level in 70 years and announced cuts in air passenger duty for UK domestic flights, and because it fails to set out a plan to grow the UK’s economy, fundamentally reform business rates, and create better jobs for the future.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to set out the view of the Opposition on the Second Reading of the Bill, which comes at a time when people across the UK are seeing the cost of living, from electricity to food prices, going up and up; when businesses are trying to get back on their feet after 18 months of struggle; and when our country needs leadership to build a new net zero economy with jobs for the future. Yet let us look at what the Government are doing: putting up taxes on working people while cutting them for banks; giving up on fundamental reforms to business rates that would give our high streets the backing they need; and failing to invest in the new jobs of the future that would turn the challenge of net zero into an opportunity for our country’s economy to grow.

The truth is the Tories will never put working people first. I stood here two months ago arguing that the Government were wrong to hike up taxes on working people with their national insurance rise when those with the broadest shoulders should be paying more, and yet what we have before us today is a tax cut for banks. That tells us everything we need to know about the Tories when in power. They do not seem to care whether something is fair for people in this country, except of course when they think something is unfair to one of their own, and then they simply change the rules to suit themselves. The British people are seeing through the Government’s approach: people are seeing that this Government are more concerned with protecting themselves than with protecting the economy and people’s quality of life.

The foundation of any Government’s approach to the economy must be a plan for growth. With a growing economy, we have the chance to create new jobs with better wages and conditions in every part of the country, but without growth it gets ever harder to meet the challenges we face. Let us look at the record of this Government. As the shadow Chancellor my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West told the Chancellor right after the Budget, it is clear what direction we are going in under the Conservatives. In the first decade of this century, despite the financial crisis, Labour grew the economy by 2.3% a year. In the last decade to 2019, however, even before the pandemic, the Tories grew the economy at just 1.8% a year. In the future, things look even worse. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that by the end of this Parliament the UK economy will be growing by just 1.3% a year. This low growth is hitting people in their pockets: data from the Office for National Statistics show that average yearly wage growth has fallen from 1.6% in the decade to 2010 to 0.5% in the decade since 2010. We do not have much to look forward to, either, with the Institute for Fiscal Studies saying that over the next five years, real household disposable income is expected to grow by just 0.8% a year, well below the historical average.

Low growth is becoming a hallmark of the Tories in power. What they fail to realise is that with the right investment, the challenges we face can become opportunities for growth. In no part of our lives is that more evident than our response to climate change. Labour has said that we would invest an additional £28 billion every year for the rest of this decade in transforming our economy—from new jobs building batteries for electric vehicles, to manufacturing and maintaining wind turbines, and finally insulating our homes to get energy bills down. With investment on the scale we need, and with Labour’s pledge to buy, make and sell more in Britain, we would turn an urgent, critical response to the climate emergency into an opportunity for new jobs with decent pay and conditions in every part of our country.

In every part of our country, too, we see shops and high streets struggling to get back on their feet after the last 18 months. We should turn their urgent need for support into a chance to fundamentally overhaul the system of business rates, which has had its day. Business on high streets across the country know that the business rates system is broken and that fundamental change is long overdue. We know that, too, which is why we have pledged to scrap business rates and replace them with a new system of business taxation fit for the 21st century, which would incentivise investment, reward businesses moving into empty premises and encourage environmental improvements. Crucially, under our new system, no public services or local authorities would lose out, and online businesses would pay a fairer share.

We thought the Conservatives also knew that change on that scale was needed. We thought they might understand the need for an overhaul of the system, as their 2019 manifesto promised to reduce business rates through

“a fundamental review of the system.”

We thought they might even have meant it: in 2020, the Treasury began a consultation on what it said would be the fundamental review that its Ministers had promised. Yet in last month’s Budget, the Chancellor decided to ditch any prospect of fundamental reform under this Government.

Measures in the Budget for next year may be welcome, but no matter how the Chancellor tries to spin it, the promise of fundamental reform from this Government is over. As the chief executive of the British Retail Consortium put it, what the Government have offered

“falls far short of the truly fundamental reform that is needed and was promised”.

That manifesto promise of a fundamental reform of business rates has been broken, just as the promise not to raise national insurance was broken a month before.

We have a Government who are breaking their promises and failing to set out a plan to grow the UK’s economy and create better jobs for the future. Growing our economy would mean more jobs and higher tax revenues to invest in public services, but if the UK economy had grown at the same rate as other advanced economies over the last decade, we could have had £30 billion more to invest in public services without needing to raise taxes. Yet under the Tories, lower growth means that taxes need to go up. Last month’s Budget saw taxation rise to its highest level for 70 years.

Crucially, the decisions about who should shoulder the burden of tax rises tell us everything we need to know about the Tories when they are in power. The Tories are making life harder for half the population through their personal allowance freeze, for all working people through their national insurance tax rise, and for struggling families through their cut to universal credit, yet they are making life easier for bankers by cutting taxes on banking companies, and for frequent flyers by cutting air passenger duty on domestic flights. A banker flying between London and Leeds is getting a double tax cut, but someone working in the airport where that flight lands is getting a double tax rise.

[Rushanara Ali]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is scandalous that the Government have only just agreed to restore schools expenditure to its 2010 level, despite a shortfall of £10 billion for catch-up notwithstanding requests from the former catch-up tsar? If we are serious about improving productivity in this country, we need to invest in our kids and in skills. Government expenditure falls far too short, and that will damage the future of our economy.

[James Murray]

As my hon. Friend rightly points out, investing in education is critical to the future of our country and the next generation. We heard the Minister say how uncomfortable she feels talking about cuts, but that is the reality of 11 years of Conservative government. No matter how they try to massage the announcements they are making now, the truth is that if we compare 2021 with 2010, we can see the impact that 11 years of the Tories has had on our public services.

At a time when working people are facing rising prices and flatlining wages, it shows the Tories’ true colours that they are prioritising a tax cut for bankers. To rub salt in the wound, as the IFS has pointed out, the cut in air passenger duty will flow through the UK emissions trading scheme and push up electricity prices at home. It was shocking to hear the Chancellor announce a cut in air passenger duty just days before COP26, and it is shocking that his tax cut for banks will cost the public finances £1 billion a year by the end of this Parliament.

That cut will see the corporation tax surcharge for banking companies slashed from 8% to 3%, with the allowance for the charge raised from £25 million to £100 million. It is worth reminding ourselves why that sector-specific tax was first introduced. As the policy paper published alongside the Budget—I am sure the Minister has read it—sets out clearly, the charge has been levied on banks to reflect

“the risks that they pose to the UK financial system and wider economy”

and to recognise

“the costs arising from the financial crisis.”

When the surcharge was introduced 10 years ago, in the wake of the financial crisis, the Government at the time seemed to recognise that banks had an implicit state guarantee due to their central position in the UK economy, and that that guarantee should be underpinned by greater tax contributions. Yet, as Tax Justice has pointed out, the Office for Budget Responsibility found in 2019 that £27 billion of Government expenditure on bailing out the banks was still outstanding. It seems that the Government are determined to push ahead with a cut to the surcharge, despite the fact that it will not even have fully repaid the public money spent on banks during the financial crisis, let alone provided any insurance against a future crash. We will question Ministers on that further in Committee.

We will also use that chance to press Ministers on other parts of the Bill, including those that introduce the residential property developer tax and measures relating to money laundering and tax avoidance. We support the principle behind the residential property developer tax, which will be levied on the largest developers in the residential property sector. It is right that those responsible for putting dangerous materials on buildings should pay towards the very significant costs of removing unsafe cladding, but it would be a mistake to assume that levying that tax alone will mean that the cladding scandal will in any way come to an end.

The tax is expected to raise £2 billion over 10 years, yet the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has estimated that addressing all fire safety defects in every high-rise or high-risk residential building could cost up to £15 billion. What is more, extreme pressures on labour and materials mean that the cost of fire safety works could rise significantly, all but wiping out the money raised from the new tax proposed in the Bill.

The bottom line is that leaseholders living in buildings with potential fire risks and facing huge remediation costs need to know how those costs will be met in full and that the necessary work will be done without delay. There are plenty of people involved in this scandal who should be paying to fix it, but leaseholders are absolutely not among them.

We also support the principle behind the economic crime levy to raise money from the anti-money laundering regulated sector to pay for measures in the economic crime plan to help tackle money laundering. As the director of the Centre for Financial Crime and Security Studies has said, a

“key challenge for the UK Government’s response to financial crime is a lack of investment in capabilities to respond to its policy ambition.”

We hope that the funding from the levy will go some way towards increasing the capacity in government to tackle economic crime, although we will press Ministers on whether it is enough.

[Peter Grant]

Does the shadow Minister agree that, as part of the drive to deal with money laundering, there is also a need for significantly greater transparency so that the people who buy up huge swathes of property in London, for example, are openly identified and any illegal money that has been laundered in that way is much harder to hide?

[James Murray]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Alongside funding, of course, there are also changes to the law that would strengthen the UK’s ability to fight economic crime. Top of the list must be putting in place a public register of the beneficial owners of overseas entities that own UK property. Such a register would bring much needed transparency to the overseas ownership of UK property and help to stop the use of UK property for money laundering.

So, where is the register? In 2016, Prime Minister David Cameron first announced plans to make it a reality. In 2017, the “National Risk Assessment of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing” confirmed that property continued to be an attractive vehicle for criminal investment, particularly high-end money laundering. In 2018, a draft Bill to set up a register of overseas entities was published. In 2019, a Joint Committee of MPs and Lords published their pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill and the Government published their response. In that response, published in July 2019, the Minister responsible, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), said:

“Knowing who ultimately owns and controls a company is an important part of the global fight against corruption, money laundering and terrorist financing.”

We agree. The Minister committed to

“turn this Bill into an Act, and to deliver an operational register in 2021.”

However, since that Government response was published in July 2019—and since, as it happens, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) became Prime Minister, at the end of that very month—the desire to see the register put into place seems to have lost its energy.

Ministers are legally required by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 to report to Parliament annually on the progress that has been made toward putting such a register in place. In 2020, a ministerial statement was indeed published, but any commitment to the register being operational by 2021 had by then been dropped. This year’s ministerial statement, published on 2 November, barely mentioned the register, arguing:

“The overseas entities register is one of a number of proposed corporate transparency reforms”.

The statement focused mainly on other changes and, in fact, barely mentioned the register, ending with that dreaded phrase:

“The Government intends to introduce legislation to Parliament as soon as parliamentary time allows.”

It is astonishing that the Government feel that the need for the register is becoming less urgent. The Pandora papers confirmed how overseas shell companies secretly buy up luxury property in the UK, and how much transparency is needed to help to tackle money laundering.

What are we meant to conclude from the fact that the appointment of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) as Prime Minister in July 2019 coincided perfectly with a change in direction by the Conservatives away from a commitment to make transparent the ownership of overseas companies buying up UK property? What could possibly be the connection between overseas individuals investing in UK property through anonymous companies and the current occupant of 10 Downing Street? Why on earth would anyone in Government not want to introduce the transparency that their own colleagues have said in the past is crucial to tackling high-end money laundering?

I am sure that later in the consideration of the Bill, we will return to the matter of anti-money laundering. At later stages, we will also consider the effectiveness of measures in the Bill to tackle tax avoidance, as that is an important matter for us and the public. In the Opposition, we have long been pushing for the Government to do more to tackle tax avoidance, and while any action on that is welcome, including the measures in the Bill, we do not believe they go far enough. Crucially, as well as the regulations that are needed, the Government must invest in the resources that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs needs to tackle the problem effectively.

The Budget papers confirm that HMRC is set to receive a

“£0.9 billion cash increase over the Parliament”.

However, as TaxWatch has pointed out,

“the vast majority of this will not go towards tackling tax fraud, but rather to deal with the additional complexities surrounding the UK’s departure from the European Union.”

We know that effective investment in tackling tax avoidance can bring in much more than is spent, so it is crucial to make sure that that is not ignored by the Government. We will return to this important matter in later stages of the Bill. We will return to that point because the principle at the heart of our tax system must be that everyone plays by the rules and pays their fair share. That principle needs to be stated and supported, as under this Government, with this Budget and this Finance Bill, our country is moving further and further away from that ideal.

Labour’s vision of the economy is this: invest in good modern jobs with decent pay and conditions in every part of the country; support small businesses and high streets from being undercut by large multinationals who do not pay their fair share of tax; and buy, make and sell more in the UK to use every lever we have to support British industries to succeed. That is how we begin to rebuild and strengthen our economy after a decade of low growth, with no end in sight. That is how we make sure people have more money in their pockets for them and their families, and how we increase tax revenues to invest in public services.

But that is not what we are getting from this Government. The low growth they are responsible for means that taxes have had to go up. Faced with a choice of which taxes to raise, the Tories have shown the British people their true colours. Millions of families across the country are already being hit by the Tories’ decision to cut universal credit. From next April, working people across the country will pay more, as their income tax personal allowance is frozen and their national insurance contributions are hiked up. Yet from the April that follows, banks will see the tax they have paid since the financial crisis cut by £1 billion a year by the end of this Parliament. That is the choice the Tories have made: taxes on working people will go up, while taxes on banks will be cut. For people who are working hard but finding things tough, the Tories have nothing to offer except a tax rise.

Fairness is the one of most British values there is, yet it is one this Government just do not get. The Tories are spending all their time protecting themselves, when they should be looking out for the British people. Labour would grow the economy. We would invest in the future. We would make sure working people were never again the first to feel the brunt of tax rises that this Tory Government are forcing on their shoulders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately]

The answer to that question is 33%, but the fact is that the rate is going up, from 27% to 28%. That is an increase in tax; it really is quite simple maths.

While supporting investment and competitiveness in our key industries, we must also continue to fund our crucial public services and strengthen our public finances. To keep this Government on the path of discipline and responsibility, the new charter for budget responsibility sets out two key fiscal rules. First, underlying public sector net debt, excluding the impact of the Bank of England, must, as a percentage of GDP, be falling. Secondly, in normal times the state should only borrow to invest.

That is the context for the introduction of the health and social care levy, which we have already voted on, and the 1.25% increase to tax rates on dividend income, delivered through this Bill. This funding is to provide a new long-term funding stream for health and social care, raising more than £12 billion a year over the spending review period, of which £5 billion is earmarked for social care—that picks up on the question from the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson). I would be delighted to tell him more about the plans involved in that, but I would be digressing too much from the context of the Bill and that is probably one for another occasion. However, what I will say to Opposition Members who want to scrap that extra funding is that they have no other plan to finance getting down the NHS backlog or social care reform, other than through borrowing—they would pass the cost on to future generations. The Government are taking a responsible, fair and progressive way to raise revenue. Additional and higher-rate taxpayers are expected to contribute more than three quarters of the revenue from this increase in 2022-23. Those with the broadest shoulders will pay more.

A number of hon. Members asked about the funding of net zero. Taking a step back for a moment, let me say that the net zero strategy sets out our path to net zero by 2050. Overall, we have earmarked £30 billion-worth of investment in net zero, but that is a long-term investment. Net zero funding in this spending review and Budget specifically includes £1.3 billion of energy innovation funding, £1.4 billion of public sector decarbonisation funding, £1.8 billion to help low-income households to transition to net zero, £620 million extra for the transition to electric vehicles and up to £1.7 billion for large-scale nuclear energy. So, as hon. Members can see, there is funding for net zero in the spending review and Budget. In addition, the revised Green Book means that all policy objectives need to align with net zero.

Let me turn to measures in the Bill that tackle economic crime, and tax avoidance and evasion. The Government are committed to making the UK a hostile place for illicit finance and economic crime, helping to protect our security and prosperity. In recent years, we have taken a series of steps to combat economic crime, including the creation of a new National Economic Crime Centre to co-ordinate the law enforcement response, as well as passing the Criminal Finances Act 2017, which introduced new powers for enforcement authorities to investigate cash believed to be derived from criminal proceeds. The Bill builds on those steps by introducing the new economic crime levy, which will help fund further action on money laundering, including the ambitious reforms that the Government announced in the 2019 economic crime plan, and help safeguard the UK’s global reputation as a safe and transparent place to conduct business. It is a proportionate measure, which will be paid by entities that are regulated for anti-money laundering purposes.

We are also taking action through the Bill to clamp down on promoters of tax avoidance schemes. In response to the question from the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), we are giving HMRC new powers: to freeze and secure a promoter’s assets; to introduce a new penalty on UK entities who support offshore promoters; to petition the courts to close down companies or partnerships that promote avoidance schemes; and to share more information on promoters to support taxpayers to steer clear of such schemes.

[James Murray]

Will the Minister explain when the register of overseas entities owning UK property will be in place?

[Helen Whately]

I am happy to write to the hon. Member on that question.

Finally, I turn to the administration of the tax system. Only last year, the Government published a 10-year tax strategy that seeks to improve the tax system and its support for taxpayers. The House will recall that the Chancellor was clear in his Budget speech that we must deliver a simpler, fairer tax system that supports consumers and is also competitive for business, and we have, for example, the most radical simplification of alcohol duties for more than 140 years. As part of that, community pubs can look forward to a new and simpler system of alcohol duties, including draught relief, which will cut duty on beer and cider served in pubs by 5%, as celebrated in the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew). Alcohol duties will also be reformed around the simple, common-sense principle that the stronger the drink, the higher the rate. That will be legislated for next year after a detailed consultation.

In the meantime, the Bill does more to build a simpler and more sustainable tax system. Basis period reform, for example, will remove the existing highly complex requirements around basis period rules, including double taxation of early years of trading. Anyone who, like me, has studied accountancy will appreciate that.

As my right hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary said at the beginning of the debate, the Bill comes before us when we are seeing significant improvements in the economic situation. The Government are rightly focused on economic recovery, and let there be no doubt that our plan is working. A year ago, the country was experiencing the deepest recession on record, but thanks to our plan for jobs, which the Office for Budget Responsibility has called “remarkably successful”, we are recovering fast. The OBR expects the economy to return to pre-pandemic levels at the turn of the year, several months earlier than it thought in March. We do still have historically high levels of debt, but new fiscal rules together with measures in the Bill will ensure that the public finances remain on a sustainable path.

It is a Bill that encourages business investment, delivers stronger public finances, tackles tax avoidance and evasion, contributes to a simpler and more sustainable tax system and fundamentally delivers a stronger economy for the British people. For those reasons and more, I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Health and Social Care Levy Bill

James Murray Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 14th September 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Health and Social Care Levy Bill because, notwithstanding the need to increase funding for health and social care, the Bill raises money for an approach announced by the Government that fails to set out a plan to fix the crisis in social care, improve pay and conditions for social care workers, or clear the NHS waiting list backlog by the end of this Parliament, while breaking the Prime Minister’s promise that no one will have to sell their home to pay for care; because it lacks a guarantee that Parliament will vote on a social care plan before spending the money it raises; and because it breaks the Government’s promise not to increase National Insurance, raising taxes on employment that will disproportionately hit working families, young people, those on low and middle incomes and businesses trying to create more jobs in the wider economy, whilst leaving income from other sources untouched.”

Today, the Government are pushing through a new tax on working people and their jobs. All scrutiny by the House of Commons of the Government’s manifesto-breaking plans has been squeezed into a single day. As Conservative Members have said, we have just a few hours of scrutiny on this entire Bill, just one week after the Government first revealed their intentions. Why the sudden rush? The truth is that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are desperate to avoid giving their own side enough time to push back. They want to make sure that, by the time it sinks in with their own MPs what a mistake this tax rise is, it will be too late for their Back Benchers to mount any opposition.

Perhaps it is also sinking in with Conservative Back Benchers that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are pushing through these plans for a tax rise without having a plan for social care. If we are to believe the Prime Minister, and there is absolutely no reason why we should, he had a plan for social care two years ago. We are still waiting to see it. All we have today is a tax rise for working people and for businesses that are creating jobs.

[Catherine West]

Does my hon. Friend agree that these problems began in 2010? The NHS’s satisfaction rate in 2009 was 80%, and now it is way lower. In fact, they might have got rid of all the satisfaction surveys so that we do not know what people really think.

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the Conservative Government’s impact on the national health service over the last decade, running it into the ground and leaving it in such a state when the covid pandemic hit.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), the shadow Chancellor, said last week:

“There are two tests for the package announced yesterday. First, does it fix social care? Secondly, is it funded fairly?”—[Official Report, 8 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 327.]

Looking at the Bill, it is clearer than ever that the answer to both those questions remains a resounding no.

[Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)]

On the basis of those two tests, which tax would the hon. Gentleman increase to pay for social care?

[James Murray]

We are clear that taxes will have to rise to pay for social care, but we are also clear that this increase in national insurance contributions is not the way to raise the money fairly. When it comes to funding the NHS, social care and all our public services, we are clear that those with the broadest shoulders should be asked to contribute more.

This five-page Bill contains nothing at all about a plan to fix social care; it does not even mention a plan. Put simply, there is no guarantee that a plan for social care will be in place even when the levy comes into force.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I was going to pose this question to the Minister, but he would not take my intervention. Last week I was told by the insurance arm of a major bank that the Government are actively encouraging it to produce insurance products specifically for health and social care. Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am not only about who is encouraging such developments but about what it means for the acceleration of privatisation not only in social care but in the health service?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend makes us think about what we have read recently about what the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) has been saying about a rebate from this tax for those who take out private insurance. Make no mistake, that is a slippery slope towards a two-tier healthcare system.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for some time, but he has not said what taxes he would raise. Why was it okay for Labour to raise national insurance to pay for healthcare in 2003, when there was not a pandemic and we did not have the scale of social care need that we have today? If it was right then, why is it not right now?

[James Murray]

The right hon. Gentleman speaks about a tax rise 20 years ago, following a decade of wage growth, and it came with a plan for how the money would be invested. In stark contrast, this Government’s tax rise hits working people after a decade of stagnating wages, after we have been hit by a global pandemic and after years during which where people get their money from has changed. Above all, the Conservatives’ tax rise comes with no promise that it will clear the NHS waiting list backlog in this Parliament and no promise that any money will be seen by the social care sector.

Despite all that has been said, there is no guarantee in the Bill that social care will benefit from the Government’s tax rise. In fact, the Bill explicitly rules out any money going towards social care in the first year, and there is nothing to guarantee that a single penny of this new levy will ever go into the social care sector.

The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services realises this, and it said on Monday that

“it is not clear that there is any new money for adult social care to help improve care and support from April 1st next year… It will not add a single minute of extra care and support, or improve the quality of life for older people, disabled people and unpaid carers.”

As the association rightly points out, this could leave councils with no option other than to raise council tax. Indeed, the Government have admitted that they expect councils to cover increasing need and rising costs. Despite £8 billion having been cut from local council care budgets by a decade of Conservative Government, there is no money for councils that need it now.

In truth, this levy does not set out to fix the crisis in social care. It seeks only to be a political fix for the Prime Minister. I suspect Conservative Members know that, and I suspect the Prime Minister is noticing that his attempt at a political fix is quickly becoming a political headache.

Although some Conservative Members may be worried about how to explain to their constituents that they have broken their manifesto promise and still failed to fix social care, others have a different agenda. The hon. Member for Yeovil, as I mentioned earlier, has been reported as saying that he wants people with private social care insurance to get a rebate from the new tax. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), the shadow Health Secretary has said, this looks very much like a “slippery slope” towards a two-tier healthcare system and privatisation.

[Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)]

My comments have been misreported. The origins of the Labour movement and the Liberal movement are in trade unions, co-operatives and friendly societies that came together to look after each other. What I am suggesting is that we get money into such systems to help people look after and pay for themselves in older age. There are myriad ways in which the system can be made much more progressive, and I am on their side in trying to make this more progressive than it is at the moment.

[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.

[James Murray]

The hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) knows full well that his question is not relevant to this discussion. We are talking about the NHS and the social care system, and we need reassurance from Ministers that they will not entertain a two-tier healthcare system on the back of comments made by Conservative Members.

We need to transform social care into the service that people want, need and deserve, which is why our plan for social care would include: enshrining the principle of home first; making a fundamental shift in the focus of support towards prevention and early intervention; getting care workers the pay, terms and conditions they deserve—at the very least, a real living wage of £10 an hour—while transforming training to improve the quality of care; and, crucially, making sure that England’s 11 million unpaid family carers get proper information, advice, breaks and the workplace flexibility they need to balance work and caring responsibilities.

Of course, today we are not discussing how to transform social care. We are debating a Bill that introduces a tax rise that may never go towards helping social care, and one that is raised on the backs of working people and businesses that are creating jobs.

[Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

What would the hon. Gentleman do about the backlog of 5 million people, as a result of covid, waiting for procedures and operations in the NHS? Does he not want that backlog to be dealt with?

[James Murray]

The right hon. Lady raises points about the backlog in the NHS. We have had 10 years of a Conservative Government, of whom she has been a key part. She is responsible for the backlog, along with all her colleagues on the Conservative Benches. They should take some responsibility for the mess they have caused.

We know that social care desperately needs more funding, but are the Government raising taxes for those with large portfolios of stocks and shares? No. Are they increasing taxes on landlords who rent out multiple properties? No. Are they going further to tackle large online multinationals that shift their profits overseas? No. The Government have gone for a tax rise on working people and businesses creating jobs.

Last week, the Government tried to soften the blow by claiming that their tax plans are fair because this tax rise on working people is accompanied by a tax rise on dividends. So where is the tax rise on dividends? The Government’s proposal documents last week admitted that that might be legislated for in the next Finance Bill, and indeed there is nothing on raising taxes on dividends in the Bill in front of us today. They are pulling out the stops to increase taxes on working people as quickly as possible, ramming this legislation through in one day, but when it comes to dividends and a tax that the Prime Minister acknowledged last week would affect

“better-off business owners and investors”—[Official Report, 7 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 154.]

suddenly there is no rush. Let us not fall for the claim that the dividend tax rise will make the Government’s proposals fair. The dividend tax—if it ever happens; we have only the Prime Minister’s word for that, after all— would raise only 5% of the total revenue. Some 95% of the tax bill would land on employment.

If we want to understand the impact of this tax rise on people and their jobs, let us start by looking at the Government’s own view. Their own tax information and impact note on this tax rise was signed off personally by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and published on 9 September—curiously, this was a couple of days after the Government’s proposals were announced. It says in no uncertain terms:

"There may be an impact on family formation, stability or breakdown as individuals, who are currently just about managing financially, will see their disposable income reduce.”

Five years ago, the Prime Minister’s predecessor began her time in office claiming to be an ally for people who are “just about managing”. Now we have the Government’s own report admitting that they are the ones who will suffer.

The report is blunt too about the impact of this tax rise on businesses. It makes it clear:

“Behavioural effects are likely to be large, and these will include...business decisions around wage bills and recruitment.”

It is there in the Government's own analysis: this will be a tax blow to jobs and wages. Others agree, with the chair of the Federation of Small Businesses saying last week:

“Breaking a manifesto promise by increasing National Insurance Contributions just at the moment when firms are struggling to get back on their feet would be devastating for small businesses and the local communities they serve...If this hike happens, fewer jobs will be created by the UK’s small business community over the crucial months ahead.”

The British Chambers of Commerce agrees, warning:

“A rise in National Insurance Contributions would represent a hammer blow to jobs growth at this crucial point in the UK's economic recovery.”

The CBI president said:

“National Insurance increase will directly hurt a business’s ability to hire staff, at a time when businesses have faced a torrid 18 months and are now fighting crippling labour shortages.”

Do the Financial Secretary and the Chief Secretary think the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce and the CBI are all wrong? Perhaps the Financial Secretary will get up to tell me the answer to that. [Interruption.] Sorry, I thought the Financial Secretary was keen to get to his feet to respond to my question. He does not want to, no. He does not want to answer whether he thinks the FSB, the BCC and the CBI are all wrong. Do other Members from his party think they are wrong?

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

rose—

[James Murray]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to intervene to answer that question.

[Andrew Griffith]

I am just wondering whether the hon. Gentleman’s tax primer in low corporate taxes has enlightened him with any ideas of his own as to how his party would propose to fund this. The proposal on the table is a broad-based tax. How would he fund this?

[James Murray]

We have been absolutely clear that when it comes to funding the NHS and social care, those with the broadest shoulders should pay the most. The idea that this is a “broad-based” tax rise is completely wrong. The hon. Gentleman knows that, we know that and the British public know that. I note that when he got to his feet, he did not answer the question as to whether he thought the FSB, the BCC and the CBI are all wrong. Next time another Conservative Member gets to their feet, I would like to hear their answer to that. I would also like to know whether they think TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady was wrong when she said last week:

“We know social care needs extra funding. But the prime minister is raiding the pockets of low-paid workers, while leaving the wealthy barely touched.”

That is the fundamental unfairness at the heart of this Government’s tax rise.

The Prime Minister and Chancellor are desperate to pretend this is the only way to raise the money, but that simply is not true. A fairer approach would see funding for the NHS, social care and all our public services borne by those with the broadest shoulders—this would include those with incomes from large financial assets, multiple rental properties, and other income from wealth contributing more. But they have not been considered by this Government, who would prefer to hit workers instead.

This Government are landing a tax rise, which they claim will go toward social care, on low-paid social care workers themselves. The truth is that this is a tax on working people and their jobs. This tax rise tells us nothing about how the Government plan to fix social care, but it tells us everything we need to know about the instincts of the Tories when they are in power. That is why it is wrong. That is why we will be voting against this Bill. And that is why Conservative MPs would do well to join us tonight if, come the next election, they want to be able to look their constituents in the eye.

Health and Social Care Levy Bill

James Murray Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 14th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I would just like an indication of who will want to make independent speeches by bobbing—thank you.

[James Murray]

As we turn to the Bill’s Committee stage, I will address the new clauses tabled in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare).

We know that social care desperately needs more funding and the Government claim that their Bill today will help to raise some of that money, but the truth is that there is nothing in this Bill that will guarantee a penny going towards social care. I will return to that point when I address new clause 6, but first I want to look at the core measure that this Bill introduces—the unfair tax rise on working people and their jobs. Our new clause 3 would require the Government to report to the House of Commons on the impact that the Bill will have on tax revenue derived from different sources of income. On the one hand, there is income from employment and self-employment, which the Government have chosen to tax hard. On the other hand, as new clause 3 mentions, there is income from dividends, rental properties and other sources of wealth, which the Government have left untouched. We know that the Government have chosen not to raise taxes for those with large portfolios of stocks and shares, and for landlords renting out multiple properties, but the Bill even lacks any mention of taxes on dividends, despite the Prime Minister saying that they would be taxed more. Perhaps when the Financial Secretary to the Treasury responds, he could explain why the Government have chosen to delay implementing a tax rise in dividends until the next Finance Bill or beyond. Will he give us his word that the increase in tax on dividends will definitely go ahead?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I am someone who has believed in getting cross-party consensus on the future of social care funding, and who has been calling for a health and social care levy since 2016. Does the hon. Member recognise that there has actually been cross-party consensus on this issue, and that the shadow Care Minister, the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), called for a health and care levy in 2018? How does he reconcile that with his comments just now?

[James Murray]

Let us be really clear about what the shadow Care Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), proposed, because it was entirely different from what is being discussed now. She proposed that the tax should be raised from unearned income, and that it should be progressive and fair between generations, which fundamentally differentiates it from what we are discussing today. If the Government had truly sought to build cross-party consensus, does the hon. Gentleman not think that they would have done better to take some time over the Bill, rather than rushing it through within a week of the proposals first being announced, with limited ability for scrutiny and without any discussion of cross-party consensus about how to proceed?

[Dr Poulter]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[James Murray]

I am going to make some progress now; I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already.

As I said, although new clause 8 has not been selected today, I hope that Government Back Benchers have seen it on the amendment paper and will perhaps raise the matter with their colleagues on the Front Bench.

I hope, however, that there will be a vote this evening on new clause 5, and I urge Government Members to join us in voting for this crucial review of how the Bill will make inequality worse. We know how widespread and deep rooted inequality has become in our country. The latest bulletin from the Office for National Statistics on household income inequality in the UK for the financial year ending 2020 confirms what we all know: the income gap between the richest in society and the rest of the population has widened over the last decade. A tax rise that singles out income from employment can only make this inequality worse, and new clause 5 seeks to expose this.

Not only does inequality manifest between people who may live in the same area, it also creates divides between different nations of a country and the regions within them. In areas where average wages are lower and fewer people get income from other assets, the impact of the national insurance rise and the levy will be more acutely felt. Recent analysis in the New Statesman suggested that within the regions of England, it is people in the north-west and the west midlands who will take the greatest hit to their disposable income as a result of the Bill.

Data from the Office for National Statistics’ wealth and assets survey shows that the south-east is home to well over 3 million adults living in families with net wealth per adult of more than £250,000. That is roughly six times the number in the north-east. A tax increase that ignores income from renting out properties and selling financial assets, and that seeks to fund a plan that ignores differences in house prices and care costs between different regions, is destined to make inequality worse.

[Dr Murrison]

We are getting more granularity in the proposals that Opposition Front Benchers have in their heads for funding the uplift, which I think we all agree is necessary for health and social care, but can I probe the hon. Gentleman to describe the nature of the landlords or property-based businesses he has in his crosshairs for the levy of the moneys that he has in mind? Does he mean, for example, the mom and pop organisation that has bought a small residential property because it has no public sector pension, for example, and is relying on that for income in old age, or does he have in mind a business like any other business that has large numbers of commercial properties? How much does he think he is going to raise from the alternative that he has suggested?

[James Murray]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I do feel that there is a broad consensus across this country that those with the broadest shoulders should make more of a contribution. It is quite clear from the reaction that people have had to the Government’s proposed increase in national insurance and new levy that this is falling on working people and jobs rather than taking other sources of income from wealth into account.

I have just spoken about the massive impact that this will have on inequality between different regions of the country. I therefore ask Conservative Members to guess how many times last Tuesday, when the Prime Minister announced his approach here in the House of Commons, he used the phrase “levelling up” in that 90 minute statement. It was zero. Last Wednesday, when the Financial Secretary had to take the rap here on this tax rise, how many times did he use the phrase “levelling up” in a six-hour debate? Zero. The truth is that we are a very long way from the levelling-up agenda that we hear, or at least used to hear, so much about.

Of course it is not just workers and the self-employed who will feel the direct impact of the Government’s tax rise in this Bill. This tax rise will hit businesses that want to create jobs too. That is why we have tabled new clause 4 to show the impact it will have on businesses, and on small and medium-sized businesses in particular. There will be no point in the Financial Secretary denying the impact of this measure on businesses creating jobs: it is set out starkly in the Government’s own tax information impact note that he approved last week and that we have referred to several times today. I set out earlier how this note admits that the Government’s approach will impact business decisions around wage bills and recruitment. It goes on to explain how this measure

“is expected to have a significant impact on over 1.6 million employers who will be required to introduce this change.”

No wonder the Government have managed to unite business groups, workers and trade unions against their plans. At just the time when we need to see job growth, and when furlough is ending, the Government impose an extra flat cost on getting people into work. The Federation of Small Businesses has shown that this move could lead to 50,000 more people being left out of work. Yet again, small and medium-sized businesses least able to afford this tax rise will be hit hardest while online multinationals continue to dodge their tax on this Government’s watch.

The Government’s justification for much of the Bill is that they claim the levy will fix the crisis in social care. As we made clear on Second Reading, however, there is no plan to fix social care, nor even a mention of or reference to one, in this Bill. Fundamentally, despite all the rhetoric from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, there is no guarantee that social care will benefit from the Government’s tax rise in any way at all. In the first year, the Bill explicitly rules out any money raised going toward social care. Beyond that, when the levy comes into force, it is entirely possible that not a single penny of any money raised will ever go towards the social care sector. I know that Treasury Ministers will deny that this is the case, so we ask them and Conservative Members to back our straightforward new clause 6. I note the Financial Secretary’s comment that the new clause would simply require the Chancellor to report transparently and straightforwardly on the share of the levy spent on social care each year so that we can all see what proportion of the money raised is going to the social care sector.

Finally, I turn to our new clause 7. Nothing could sum up the intrinsic unfairness at the heart of this Bill more than the case that this new clause points towards. The unfairness of the Government’s approach is impossible to ignore when we realise that this tax rise, raising money the Government claim will go towards social care, will not see those with the broadest shoulders paying their fair share but instead hit low-paid social care workers themselves. Our new clause asks the Government to be transparent and honest about this by requiring the Chancellor to report on how much revenue the levy raises from those working in the social care sector. This Government’s choices to raise national insurance, to cut universal credit and to freeze personal allowances mean that a social care worker will pay £1,108 more in tax a year. The Chancellor once clapped for key workers; now he is taxing key workers. This will hit working people hard, and we will not let voters forget it.

[Mr Fysh]

My intention with amendment 7, which I have tabled with esteemed colleagues, was to try to get the Government to focus on a way of looking at the future costs of social care and how to finance them more creatively. I have to ask: if not now, when?

We know that the most powerful way to address costs in the future is to provide for them in the present and to have the power of compounding investment returns over a period of years to meet the liabilities that people have. I am passionate about encouraging the Government to look at ways to encourage people across the board, with progressive incentives in different ways, to make provision for themselves with support from the state.

People think that they pay a contribution into national insurance that rolls up over time and gives them an entitlement to a pot of money—I have heard constituent after constituent talk about that—when we in this place know that that is not in fact the case. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Minister confirmed that that is not the Treasury’s view and that national insurance is a tax collected in-year that must be spent in-year.

There is a big opportunity for reform and innovation that could be useful and get very much back to the ethos behind the Beveridge report and the origins that I spoke to in the Second Reading debate. There was a radical movement trying to help individuals and groups provide for each other. Lloyd George and the Liberal Government’s 1911 Act was about getting national aid into the system in a creative way. I think there is an opportunity for us to talk as one whole House about innovating for the modern world in that way. What was wrong with some of those older schemes and co-operatives, friendly societies and such things in the old days was that sometimes people ran off with the money. That was one reason why there was a need to put more of a national embrace around it and administer it that way. In the modern world, we can do it differently.

All I was trying to do with the amendment was give scope for the Government to think about applying some of the funds from an element of national insurance or something related to it—that is, the levy, which clause 2 sets out—to help incentivise such pooled saving schemes. That is not necessarily insurance or private insurance with a middleman; it could be national schemes or community schemes that are properly co-operative and very low-cost. There are many modern approaches to that in the digital world, such as digital autonomous organisations, where there are no middlemen at all and people do not have to rely on a contract.

That was the pure intent of my amendment, so I am a little disappointed that the Government do not seem to want to engage with it. I urge my right hon. Friend and those on the Treasury Bench to think about ways we might do that in the future, because I can see it as a useful evolution of the policy that might bring people from all parts of the House together in the way I have been describing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I thank colleagues for their contributions to the debate. It has been very wide ranging—especially the last speech—occasionally touching on the subject of the Bill and the clauses and amendments in it.

Let me start with the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) who speaks for the Opposition. He asked why the dividend tax has not been brought in. The answer to that question is that it does not fall under a national insurance contributions Bill. Dividends are subject to a separate dividend tax regime. That is a tax that is already in existence and it will be handled, as the Government have already made clear, in the course of the forthcoming Finance Bill.

The hon. Gentleman asked questions about levelling up and multinationals’ tax avoidance. I think he is aware that the Government’s approach to levelling up is extremely manifest, most recently in the work that we have done with the UK Infrastructure Bank, which is specifically dedicated to net zero and levelling up and which has just recruited a world-class new chief executive. On the case of multinationals, he has obviously forgotten that the Government have been in the vanguard of the G20 and the G7 in arranging and leading on a new settlement on Pillar One and Pillar Two multinationals’ tax avoidance.

The hon. Gentleman repeated his untrue claim from the earlier debate that these measures contain no new funding for social care. In fact, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said a few minutes before he first said that, the measures contain £5.4 billion to support social care, which is in the plan. In case he missed it, it is in paragraph 36 of the plan. It is no wonder that those on the Labour Front Bench do not think that we have a plan if they cannot be bothered to read the plan that we have actually published.

[James Murray]

To be absolutely clear, the question that I was putting to the Minister was: where in the Bill is there a guarantee that a single penny of this new levy will go to social care?

[Jesse Norman]

The Bill is designed to fund the plan and the plan has been published. The plan is perfectly explicit as to where the money is going with regard to social care and how much is going to social care. It is in paragraph 36. The hon. Gentleman only needs to look at the plan to see it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) tabled a probing amendment and explained the background to his own amendment 7, and I thank him for that. I mean him no disrespect when I say that the Government have taken the amendment on board, and will take it on board, but I still ask him to withdraw his amendment.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) talked airily about unfunded social care plans controlled, as it were, by England over Scotland. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that Scotland has social care plans that are underfunded. Audit Scotland said that more money was needed. The Independent Review of Adult Social Care in Scotland said that more money will need to be spent over the longer term. Unfortunately, he also ignores what has been accurately described by the Prime Minister as the Union dividend from which all the devolved Administrations will benefit.

My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) asked the important question of why a new tax. It is important to focus on this. The reason there is a new tax is that this is a fundamental change in how we have been thinking about social care. Andrew Dilnot himself has said that he does not think it inappropriate to have a new tax funded to support this.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) talked about Treasury concern with hypothecation, which remains intact. There is already an existing level of hypothecation within the national insurance contributions system and this plays off that. The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) went into a long diatribe, in which she accused the Government of seeking to protect the richest people in society, to which the only simple answer is that that is absolute nonsense. I think she missed the debate on Second Reading, but if she read the distributional analysis, she would see that this package means that the 20% of highest income households will contribute 40 times the amount contributed by the least well off 20% of households. It is also worth pointing out that the highest earning 14% will pay roughly half of all revenues. Even the Wealth Tax Commission, which is independent of Government and dedicated to the idea of arguing for a wealth tax, acknowledged that the UK is on par with G7 countries as regards a wealth tax. Under a more inclusive definition—one that includes, for example, stamp duty land tax—the UK is near the top of the G7 countries in terms of a wealth tax.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham talked about hypothecation; I perfectly understand that. He also mentioned gross net revenues. These are net revenues—revenues that have been calculated net of the effects. The detail is set out in the technical annex to the published plan.

The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) revisited some of the themes set out by the hon. Member for Nottingham East, but I am afraid no more persuasively.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) went on a glorious canter, or possibly a ramble, around various public spending concerns. I fully appreciate his concerns. Very little of what he said actually bears direct relation to the levy, but let me address the parts that do. He asked why there is no distinct social care levy. Of course, it is possible to claim, as I did, that there is a need for greater integration between healthcare and social care, without suggesting that the funding for those things needs to be handled in exactly the same way across both. This provision blends the funding in a way that is felicitous for both elements.

My hon. Friend argued vigorously for co-payment. I take his arguments as I am sure he means them and look forward to seeing his Bill. He also mentioned millionaires in hospitals. He is right that maths is eternal; our noble Friend Lord Bethell may have been referring to the fact that calculations are not eternal, but may be in time and premature.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I thank the Clerks for their excellent and particularly rapid help with amendments to the Bill.

Today, the Government have been determined to push through their tax rise on working people and their jobs as quickly as they possibly can. The Bill contains nothing at all—not even a reference or mention—about a plan to fix social care, and it fails to guarantee that a single penny of the new levy will ever go towards the social care sector.

On Second Reading, the Opposition attempted to push for a guarantee that Parliament would vote on a social care plan before spending the money that the Bill raises. The Government rejected our attempt, and I am sure there are many Conservative Members who feel deeply uncomfortable about the position in which they find themselves.

While the Bill lacks a plan for social care or any commitment that a plan will ever be in place, or even that any of the money that the levy raises will ever go to social care, it does include a tax rise—a tax rise that hits working people and businesses creating jobs. We know what that will mean for people across the country: combined with the cut to universal credit and the freeze in personal allowances, hospitality workers, teaching assistants, supermarket workers and social care workers stand to lose more than £1,000 next year.

Members do not have to take my word for it. The Financial Secretary admitted the impact that this tax rise will have in his own tax information and impact note, which set out in no uncertain terms that people who are just about managing financially will see their disposable incomes fall. The Conservative party has united the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce and the CBI against its plans. They all agree that this represents a blow to jobs growth at a crucial point in the UK’s economic recovery. Last night, the Financial Times published its view that the “Tories must regain trust as the party of business”—which seems to be an understatement, to say the least.

The Government’s approach will hit businesses creating jobs, and it will disproportionately hit working families and young people. It will hit those on low and middle incomes. It will hit people in some parts of the country more than others. But when we tried to push Ministers in Committee to come clean about the unequal impact of their tax rise on different people and across the country, or to be transparent about how it would hit social care workers themselves, they refused. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Conservative party simply have their fingers in their ears.

Finally, the Government have refused to accept throughout today’s debates, and indeed throughout the last week, that there is any alternative to their tax rise. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor are desperate to pretend that this is the only way to raise the money, and that simply is not true. A fairer approach to funding the NHS, social care and all our public services would see those with the broadest shoulders—including those with incomes from large financial assets and multiple rental properties, and other income from wealth—contributing more. The Government have refused to consider those options, and would prefer to hit workers instead.

The simple truth is that there is no plan to fix the crisis in social care. There is no plan to improve the pay and conditions of care workers, no guarantee that any of the money will go toward social care, no guarantee that people will not have to sell their homes for care, and no plan to clear the NHS waiting list backlog during the present Parliament. All that we have is a tax on working people and their jobs. It tells us everything we need to know about the instincts of the Tories when they are in power, and that is why we will be voting against this Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Taxation is often a difficult matter for the relatively small number of individuals who may be affected by particular pressures. Of course the Government recognise and understand that, but it is nevertheless the case—it is indeed a foundational principle of the tax system—that people should be responsible for their own tax returns. If I may, I would like to refer the hon. Lady to the very wise words of the former shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who said in 2018 that

“we would obviously welcome tightening in the area of disguised remuneration schemes…We are concerned that the measures in the Bill do not go far enough…There should be no excuse”—

these are her words—

“for people not to be aware of the situation”.––[Official Report, Finance (No. 2) Public Bill Committee, 9 January 2018; c. 30.]

I am afraid that she was right about that.

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

The Conservative Government’s approach to the loan charge means that ordinary people who are victims of mis-selling are suffering financial ruin and personal harm. Ministers will have heard some harrowing accounts of people pushed to the very brink and worse, some even tragically taking their own lives. This cannot be what the Government envisaged and a new approach is urgently needed. Will the Treasury now review the loan charge scheme and the approach of HMRC to prevent further devastating consequences?

[Jesse Norman]

As I have said, both the Government and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs take these cases extremely seriously, which is why HMRC has put in place extra care and support for people who may be affected by tax issues of this and other kinds. The fact remains that we have had a review. I might refer the hon. Gentleman to the words of his colleague, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), who said of Sir Amyas Morse who did the review that it was

“a thorough piece of work…we thank him…He has done a great service to Parliament and to the wider public debate.––[Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 4 June 2020; c. 33.]

He was right about that and the Labour party has been right not to have opposed this policy at any point during its passage through Parliament.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

James Murray Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 6th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney]

I would like to make some progress, if that is okay.

We should at this time pursue economic growth and job creation above all other concerns, because we face an uncertain few months in our economy. We could face a wave of closures and redundancies as the various support schemes that the Government introduced to get us through the pandemic come to an end. There could well be lots of redundancies as the furlough scheme closes. Business rates exemptions and deferred VAT payments are coming to an end, so if we can reduce the pressure on businesses by relieving them of some of their national insurance payments, that will help them to ride out the coming period when they will need to repay some of the costs. VAT on hospitality is going back to 12.5% from the end of this month. All such financial pressures are coming at a time when we think prices will rise and the universal credit cut may well hit household incomes and supress demand.

I propose new clause 4 because instead of a selected NICs cut for companies in freeports, I would prefer that we target the cut at SMEs, at this urgent time when we want to stimulate economic growth and support employment.

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on Report on behalf of the Opposition. As we have made clear throughout the passage of this legislation through the House, we will not oppose the Bill. We have, however, used the opportunity of the debates we have had so far to raise important questions with Ministers about some of the approaches they have decided to take.

As we know, clauses 1 to 5 introduce a new zero rate of secondary class 1 national insurance contributions for employers who take on employees in a freeport. The zero rate will apply from April 2022 and allow employers to claim relief on the earnings of eligible employees of up to £25,000 per year for three years. Clauses 6 and 7 also introduce a new zero rate of secondary class 1 national insurance contributions, in this case for employers of armed forces veterans.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. It is important to address the amendments before the House at this point. We will have the Third Reading debate later.

[James Murray]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall briefly address the amendments we have been discussing as they relate to veterans’ employers’ national insurance relief. As we made clear on Second Reading and in Committee, this is a vital issue. Veterans deserve the Government’s full support as they seek civilian employment after their service to our country. The Minister may remember that on Second Reading and in Committee I asked him and his colleagues to explain why the employers’ relief for veterans is for 12 months—much less than the three years of relief for employers in freeports that the Bill also introduces.

[Mike Wood]

I wonder whether the shadow Minister could help me: which amendment is he currently speaking to that addresses employers’ relief for veterans?

[James Murray]

If the House would rather I did not address the issue of veterans’ employers’ relief, I am happy to move on, but it is an important one to address. I would welcome your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We are considering just the amendments before the House. You will have an opportunity to talk much more widely on the whole Bill when we come to Third Reading, which will follow immediately after the votes.

[James Murray]

Thank you for that clarification, Mr Deputy Speaker. In that case, let me decide where in my speech to pick up. Forgive me for the slight procedural difficulty—if it is okay, I shall reserve my right to speak later.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)]

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) was not able to revisit his greatest hits from Committee or other previous stages of the Bill, but unfortunately he is required to speak to the new clauses and amendments before us, which is what I will do.

The Scottish National party has tabled new clauses that would create a new zero rate of secondary class 1 NICs for employers classed as “green manufacturing companies”, including those that produce wind turbines and electric vehicles. As the House will know, the Government take support for the green economy extremely seriously. For example, since 2013 the Government have provided £150 million per annum to the Aerospace Technology Institute—investment match-funded by industry—including £84.6 million of investment to develop zero-emission flights and further support for other potential zero-emission aircraft concepts.

In addition, the Government are to spend nearly £500 million in the next four years to support the UK’s electric vehicle manufacturing industry as part of our commitment to provide up to £1 billion for the development and mass production of electric vehicle batteries and the associated supply chains. The funding is available UK-wide and will boost investment in the UK’s strong manufacturing base.

Of course, the Government have also stated their ambition to deploy 40 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2030, alongside a commitment to invest £160 million in ports and manufacturing infrastructure. The goal of that investment will be to encourage up to £20 billion of much-needed private investment in coastal areas and to support up to 60,000 green manufacturing jobs by 2030. The Government’s commitment to support green manufacturing is therefore quite clear.

Unfortunately, new clause 1 would introduce a major change to the tax system of a magnitude that would require the careful consideration of costs and benefits and, in fact, goes far beyond what should be included via amendment in a Bill such as this one. The design of a sector-focused tax relief is not straightforward and would add complexity to the tax system. By contrast, there has been no consultation on, costing of or impact assessment made in relation to the measure proposed in new clause 1. For those reasons, I urge the House to reject it.

On new clause 3, covid-19 has proven to be the biggest health and economic threat faced by the UK in decades. Key workers, including NHS staff and social care workers, have done extraordinary things, as the House recognises, to keep the public safe in the continuing fight against the virus. For their part, the Government hugely value and appreciate such important contributions to the covid-19 response. However, as I will explain, the Government do not believe that the new clause is appropriate or necessary. Under long-standing rules, any payments made in connection with an employment incur income tax and national insurance contributions. Such payments also count as income for the purposes of calculating entitlement to certain benefits.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this Bill’s Third Reading on behalf of the Opposition. As I have made clear several times, we are not going to oppose the Bill, but we have used the various debates on it to raise important questions about some of the approaches that Ministers have decided to take. I would like to use the opportunity of Third Reading to reiterate some of the sticking points where we do not feel that we have had enough clarity.

I spoke earlier about clauses 1 to 5 and then moved on to discuss clauses 6 and 7, which introduce a new zero rate of secondary class 1 national insurance contributions for the employers of armed forces veterans. As I made clear on Second Reading and in Committee, we believe that this is a vital issue. Veterans deserve the Government’s full support as they seek civilian employment after their service to our country. Other Members may remember that both on Second Reading and in Committee I asked the Minister and his colleagues to explain why the employers’ relief for veterans is for 12 months—much less than the relief for employers in freeports, also introduced by the Bill, which is three years.

In Committee, I made it clear that I felt that the Exchequer Secretary’s response during Second Reading had failed to address my question about why the Government had chosen to make veterans’ employers’ relief available for only one year. The Financial Secretary responded by expanding on the Government’s position. In relation to the relief for freeport employers, he said that the intention was

“to create circumstances in which they can have long-term secure employment, in particular with all the employment rights that come with more durable employment.”––[Official Report, National Insurance Contributions Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2021; c. 18.]

At another point in Committee, the Minister said about the Government’s plans for freeport employers:

“The way in which this measure has been structured is focused towards longer-term employment, as the relief runs for three years…From that point of view, it reflects a commitment by the Government to create high-quality and stable longer-term employment.”––[Official Report, National Insurance Contributions Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2021; c. 6.]

What my colleagues and I find hard to understand is why the Government, despite what the Minister has said throughout the passage of the Bill, do not seem to want to design a system for veterans that both supports transition into civilian life and, at the same time, like the scheme in freeports, seeks to create long-term employment with employment rights.

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

I am sorry that I was not party to those discussions, but perhaps I can contribute as an ex-serviceman and a former armed services Minister. It is in the first 12 months out of the armed forces when a serviceman finds themselves in a completely different arena. I understand this. In my first six months, I re-joined the armed forces because I could not settle and I could not find the right sort of employment. That was the sort of help our veterans needed then and that is exactly what this part of the Bill does today.

[James Murray]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for adding to the debate. I certainly recognise what he says about the importance of supporting veterans into civilian employment in the first six months and the first year. The question from the Opposition to which we did not have a satisfactory response is why, in addition to that, there is not a consideration or an option of support for long-term durable employment with employment rights. As that point was made several times by the Minister in relation to the relief for employers in freeports, why does the same support for longer-term employment not apply to veterans as well?

During discussions in Committee, the Minister pointed to a consultation with interested parties about how to design the scheme and mentioned how different parties had been “well sighted” on the options, so I looked at the Government’s consultation to understand what different parties had said. I was expecting to see questions about the length of the relief and whether 12 months or longer would be appropriate, but all I could find was a statement saying:

“The Government has announced that this relief will be available for the first 12 months of a veteran’s civilian employment.”

There did not seem to be any option or question about whether a longer relief would be appropriate.

Moving on to other measures we debated during the passage of the Bill, clause 10 provides a national insurance contributions exemption for payments made under a self-isolation support scheme. As we have heard, that ensures that these payments are not taken into account for the purposes of computing profits liable to class 4 NICs or for the purposes of class 2 NICs. As I set out on Second Reading and in Committee, we welcome this exemption from national insurance contributions for payments made under a self-isolation support scheme. It is crucial that people who need support to self-isolate receive it, so we welcome any steps that make the system for self-isolation payments more effective and less subject to administrative burden.

The Minister may recall that during the debate in Committee there was a brief discussion about why the exemption for class 2 and class 4 contributions was not implemented earlier. We discussed the comments that the Exchequer Secretary made on that point on Second Reading, and in Committee I asked the Minister to confirm exactly when the Treasury announced, by way of ministerial statement or other appropriate means, that the exemption for national insurance contributions would be extended to class 2 and class 4 contributions for payments made under a self-isolation support scheme. The Minister responded by saying:

“I do not have the date that he describes at hand, and I am happy to write to him on that.”––[Official Report, National Insurance Contributions Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2021; c. 22.]

I am sure he will forgive me if I have missed his letter on this matter, but my office and I cannot find a record of its having been received, so perhaps he could write to me this week, for the first time or again, to confirm that point.

We also debated clause 11, which widens existing regulation-making powers so that regulations can be made for national insurance to mirror the amendments to the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes procedures—DOTAS—that are included in the Finance Act 2021. As I made clear in earlier debates, we welcome any measures that help HMRC to tackle tax avoidance. In earlier debates I also took the opportunity to draw Ministers’ attention to a point made by the Chartered Institute of Taxation: that it believes there is a hard core of between 20 and 30 promoters of tax avoidance schemes, identified by HMRC, who clearly do not play by the rules. I asked the Minister whether he recognised this number, and, as he may recall, welcomed his confirmation that HMRC recognises the number of 20 to 30 hardcore promoters. He said, however, that he did

“not think that it would be prudent to make an estimate or assessment of what the appropriate number of promoters is or could be.”

It is therefore important that we have a better understanding of what progress we have actually made. The Minister said that

“over the past six years, more than 20 promoters have left the market.”––[Official Report, National Insurance Contributions Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2021; c. 24.]

However, he did not sign up to a commitment or a target for the coming years. I would welcome him writing to me in the coming days to explain what the number of hardcore promoters was six years ago, so that I can understand whether those who have left the market have been replaced by new promoters.

Finally, to conclude—I am very conscious, Mr Deputy Speaker, of your and Madam Deputy Speaker’s steer about what not to focus on in this debate—it is frustrating to rely only on newspaper briefings to know what is going on. I had hoped, as the Treasury Minister is the first to address the House of Commons since we first heard that the Government might be considering a national insurance rise, that we could have heard the position from him directly today. I leave the thought in his head that we would like to know why the Government’s plan for social care is one that hits hardest low earners, young people and businesses creating new jobs.

Customs Tariff (Establishment) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 Value Added Tax (Miscellaneous Amendments and Repeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021

James Murray Excerpts

Monday 19th July 2021 General Committees

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

Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Opposition as we consider these two statutory instruments.

The Value Added Tax (Miscellaneous Amendments and Repeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021 make a number of changes to EU exit VAT legislation that was commenced at the end of the transition period, following the UK’s exit from the EU. As set out in the explanatory notes, a review of EU exit VAT legislation identified a number of errors and omissions that need to be corrected to ensure that the VAT system continues to operate as required. They include minor changes to address missing or superfluous words, incorrect cross-references or formatting errors, for example. The instrument makes those corrections in relation to primary legislation.

Specifically, we understand that the instrument seeks to remove an inadvertent extension of the zero rate for the services—which are not covered by the Northern Ireland Protocol—of transport, handling and storage of imported and exported goods to movements of goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. We understand that the instrument deems that a movement of own goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland that are wholly or partly for non-business purposes is treated as a zero-rated supply. This approach means that VAT on the original purchase can be recovered, preventing double taxation through the business incurring two irrecoverable VAT charges—one on the original purchase and one on the movement into Northern Ireland.

The instrument makes further amendments to ensure the correct taxation of goods supplied from the EU to Great Britain that are transported via Northern Ireland. It does so by providing for the treatment of supplies of low-value imported goods—those sent in consignments valued at £135 or under—sold by businesses to customers in Great Britain. That provision relieves the import VAT due on the removal of the goods to the UK and instead provides that the place of supply of those goods is the UK. The instrument also makes the business, or an online marketplace if it facilitated the sale, responsible for accounting for VAT on that supply. Finally, the regulations also make minor changes to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 by repealing sections that have been made redundant by a change in policy.

We will not oppose this instrument. It is of course important that goods are appropriately taxed, that the appropriate regulations cover trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, that no business faces double taxation, and that our country’s legislation is clear and correct. However, this Committee is being asked to correct mistakes and oversights, and to properly hold the Government to account, we need to understand the impact of those mistakes and oversights. The explanatory notes make it clear that the changes that we are being asked to consider have

“no, or no significant, impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies.”

However, that is not quite the same as confirming that the errors themselves have had no, or no significant, impact. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister set out what impact each of the unintended errors in legislation has had.

The Customs Tariff (Establishment) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021 correct typographical errors and add commodity codes and duty rates for a small number of goods in the tariff of the United Kingdom. By amending the establishment regulations—part of the legislation to ensure that the UK’s customs, VAT and excise regimes were in place at the end of the implementation period—this instrument gives legal effect to an updated tariff reference document. We will of course not oppose minor changes to the commodity codes on two chemical compounds used for manufacturing, a subset of vulcanised rubber gaskets, and certain types of tropical fruit. However, this is not the first time we have been asked to sit in this room and correct errors in the tariff reference document. The explanatory notes state:

“There is no, or no significant, impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies.”

As with the other SI before us, that is not quite the same as confirming that the errors themselves have had no effect. I would be grateful if the Minister set out what impact these errors have had.

I am also conscious that, with repeated errors to the same tariff document being corrected, we need to know what the cumulative impact is of all the errors that have been made. Individual corrections or small sets of corrections might have no significant impact, but we do not know whether the same is true cumulatively of all the corrections that we have been asked to make over many months. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister made a commitment that, if we are asked to make further corrections to the tariff reference document, he will ensure that the explanatory notes include an assessment of the impact of all corrections made since its adoption.

Draft Major Sporting Events (Income Tax Exemption) (2021 UEFA Super Cup) Regulations 2021

James Murray Excerpts

Monday 19th July 2021 General Committees

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

On a point of order, Mr Gray. In the context of today’s extraordinary weather, I am afraid that I have inadvertently left my jacket in my office. In order not to delay the Committee, do I have your permission to proceed without my jacket?

[The Chair]

Being a very old-fashioned bloke, I entirely disapprove, but on this particular occasion, I am happy to allow the hon. Gentleman to remain improperly dressed. I am grateful to him for his courtesy in raising the matter with the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

Thank you, Mr Gray, for the chance to set out the Opposition’s position on the statutory instrument, despite my present attire.

[The Chair]

I will never live this one down.

[James Murray]

Neither will I. As we have heard, the instrument will remove income tax liability from accredited persons who are non-resident in the UK but who earn income in the UK arising from work related to the UEFA super cup, which is scheduled to take place on 11 August between Chelsea and the Spanish club Villareal. The football match is due to be held at the Windsor Park national stadium in Belfast, and the income tax exemption is valid from 10 to 12 August. Beyond the non- residence condition, accreditation entails that the beneficiary of the tax relief work for, or be contracted by, one of the clubs that are participating in the super cup, UEFA or broadcast, commercial or media organisations working with UEFA for the purposes of the super cup match.

May I start by congratulating the Chelsea team on winning the Champions League and booking their spot in this prestigious cup match? I am sure I speak on behalf of all members of the House of Commons—except, perhaps, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson)—when I put on the record my admiration for and thanks to the Chelsea players who represented England at the recent European championships: Mason Mount, Reece James and Ben Chilwell. I also put on the record how pleased I am that Windsor Park was selected for this match. It hosted its first match nearly 120 years ago, so it is very welcome that this iconic Belfast landmark will now host such a significant European game.

We will not oppose the statutory instrument because we know the income tax exemption was agreed as a condition of the bidding process to host the 2021 UEFA super cup match in the UK. In January 2019, the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), confirmed to UEFA in writing that all the necessary tax exemptions would be given if the Irish Football Association in Northern Ireland were awarded the match. We recognise that that is consistent with the treatment of other world- class events, not least the recent final of the Euros

Although we will not oppose the instrument, I will use this opportunity to ask the Minister to set out his view on the low pay often received by those who will not benefit from the exemption granted by this statutory instrument, but whose contributions are critical to the organisation and delivery of the event—stewards, bar staff, workers at food kiosks, cleaners and many more besides. It is striking that just four clubs in the premier league have committed to the living wage and are accredited by the Living Wage Foundation. We know that football clubs are built by their fans and communities, so I would be grateful if the Minister set out whether he agrees that British football clubs owe it to their communities to be fair employers and to commit to the living wage.

Draft Customs Safety and Security procedures (EU exit) regulations 2021

James Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2021 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Gary. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this statutory instrument on behalf of the Opposition. As we heard, the instrument introduced by the Government seeks to waive administrative reporting requirements on certain goods moving in and out of the UK. Specifically, it provides an extension to the existing waivers on certain requirements to provide exit summary declarations until 30 September 2021, and pre-arrival safety and security entry summary declarations until 31 December 2021.

We do not oppose this instrument, because British businesses need support following the exit from the EU. We want to do all we can to support British businesses facing difficult times. However, the fact that we are back here discussing these waivers raises important questions of this Government’s approach. The Minister will be aware that he sat in a Committee on 10 December 2020 and debated this matter with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). On that day, the Committee agreed to waive requirements for pre-arrival safety and security entry summary declarations and exit summary declarations for six months until 30 June 2021.

In his speech last December, the Minister assured the Committee that

“the Government would use these powers only where absolutely necessary to preserve the smooth flow of goods at the border and after due consideration of any risks arising from their use.”—[Official Report, Fourteenth Delegated Legislation Committee, 10 December 2020; c. 4.]

My right hon. Friend pressed the Minister on whether we would be sat here again, debating a further extension of waivers. The Minister said:

“we certainly do not anticipate extending the regulations. They are specifically designed to be a contingency tool to be used in specific circumstances, for specific purposes, and for a time-limited period.”—[Official Report, Fourteenth Delegated Legislation Committee, 10 December 2020; c. 8.]

Yet here we are again. As the Minister rightly put it last December, contingency tools should be used in specific circumstances for a time-limited period. He did not anticipate extending the regulations last December, so something must have changed. Could he explain what has changed since last December? Why did he not anticipate extending the regulations then, yet today he is asking us to? How many more times does he anticipate having to extend the regulations?

In December, the Minister also noted that “due consideration” would be given, and the Government conceded that the regulations presented a trade-off with the risk to border security. The explanatory memorandum states that

“An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because the provisions are in force for less than 12 months.”

Surely, waiving the requirement on pre-arrival safety and security entry summary declarations for six months and then extending that waiver for a further six months means that they are, in fact, in force for 12 months. Perhaps the Minister could explain whether that is the case and give us his view on whether an impact assessment should have been prepared.

The Minister previously referenced conversations and consultations taking place with the Home Office to mitigate the risk to border security. Will he update the Committee on what measures the Government are enacting to prevent smugglers and traffickers from bringing contraband into the country? At the time of the last debate on the regulations, the Minister said that data gathering on EU trade did not take place as the United Kingdom was still part of the single market. Could he update us on what data gathering arrangements are in place, so that we can have better oversight of EU trade and the associated border security risks?

I look forward to the Minister's reply. I would be grateful if he addressed all the points I have raised, and assure us that we will not be back in three or six months to seek a further extension of these time-limited contingency tools.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes, will he address the point about the impact assessment? The explanatory notes state that

“An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because the provisions are in force for less than 12 months.”

However, extending the pre-arrival safety and security entry summary declarations for six months, and a further six months, surely means they are enforced for 12 months. Could the Minister explain whether that is the case? Is it his view that an impact assessment should have been prepared?

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the question. No, it is not the Government’s view that an impact assessment should have been prepared, because the regulations maintain the existing status quo in which the declarations are waived. In that sense, nothing has changed. However, I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. It is important to reflect that the Government always wish to be cognisant of the impacts of legislation that they pass, and that will continue to be true elsewhere in our legislative package as well.

Question put and agreed to.