Oral Answers to Questions

James Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call shadow Minister James Murray.

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

Labour welcomes the principle of a UK infrastructure bank moving to a statutory footing, but it is crucial to make sure that public money supports decent jobs that people can raise a family on. Will the Minister therefore support our proposals for all projects funded by the infrastructure bank to come with a good jobs plan and for working people to be given a voice on its board?

[Helen Whately]

We have many measures in place to support people’s jobs. We know about the figures for record levels of payroll employment and also the increase in the national living wage earlier this year. I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman’s support for the UK infrastructure bank that we are currently legislating for, which is a really important part of our determination to drive regional and local growth across the UK.

Customs (Amendments and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2022

James Murray Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2022 General Committees

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

Thank you, Ms Fovargue, for the opportunity to set out the Opposition’s position on this statutory instrument.

As we heard from the Minister, this instrument intends to correct subordinate legislation previously made under the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. It seeks to amend errors and update tariff reference documents that detail the classification and duty of rates on goods included in the UK’s tariff schedule.

We recognise that the areas covered by the statutory instrument are fairly specific, and as the Government are correcting errors, we will not oppose it. While we recognise that corrections and amendments need to be made where defects or errors have occurred, however, it is important that the Government support businesses and minimise further inconvenience, in particular at this difficult and uncertain time.

While we will not oppose the regulations, I want to clarify the impact on the businesses affected. In particular, as the Scottish National party spokesperson said, the explanatory memorandum makes it clear that until the errors were identified, importers may have been under the impression that the import duty was being lawfully applied and in line with stated policy. The notes confirm that HMRC is planning to refund affected traders who have consequently overpaid. Will the Minister expand on her response to the earlier intervention and explain the process by which affected traders will be refunded? Will the refund take place automatically, or will traders need to apply for it? I would also be grateful if the Minister set out in further detail exactly how many traders have been affected by overpayment and over what period, and how much overpaid revenue has been approved or needs to be funded.

Although the Labour party will not oppose the statutory instrument, it is important that we get clarity on exactly how those overpayments will be refunded and on how that refund will operate.

[Lucy Frazer]

I am happy to respond to those points. As I mentioned, those 601 traders were incorrectly charged a total of £1,382,000.90. We have contacted all traders who are owed, and we are in the process of reimbursing them. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on the one question of his that I have not answered.

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman will not oppose the statutory instrument. Of course, a small part of the SI deals with the three errors that have been identified in the 16,000 tariff lines—I emphasise that those are small errors. The instrument not only deals with those small errors, but updates the code as a whole, so it was necessary to bring it before the House. For all those reasons, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Taxes on Motor Fuel

James Murray Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2022 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you, Ms Elliot, for the chance to respond to the debate on behalf of the Opposition. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on leading this important debate on the e-petition relating to taxes on motor fuel. As she set out, the fact that it has been signed by over 100,000 people underlines what we all know from our constituents: the rising cost of fuel is a pressing and urgent part of the wider cost of living crisis that is hitting people across the country.

With inflation at its highest in decades, the cost of living crisis is causing immense hardship and driving households into poverty. At the same time, this Government are alone in making us the only G7 country to be raising taxes on working people at such a difficult time. In that context, the rise in the price of fuel is being felt particularly acutely. The Office for National Statistics has published data on fuel prices that confirms what everyone knows when filling up their cars: there has been a consistent weekly increase in price since the start of 2022, with the highest rises occurring since March. As an RAC spokesperson recently said:

“March 2022 will go down in the history books as one of the worst months ever when it comes to pump prices… To describe the current situation facing drivers at the forecourt as ‘bleak’ is therefore something of an understatement.”

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about the impact that prices are having across the whole of the UK. Every community and constituency is affected. Does he share my disappointment that there are no Tory speakers? No Tory MPs appear concerned enough to have participated in this debate.

[James Murray]

Like the hon. Member, I find it very depressing to see no Conservative Back-Bench Members apparently interested in this debate. However, if the best many of them can come up with is to suggest people buy value brands or get a different job, I am not surprised they have little to add to the debate.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower said, the Petitions Committee’s survey to the respondents of the e-petition has helped bring to life some of the real impacts that fuel price rises are having on the lives of people across the country. Those responses include the supply teacher who explained the necessity of reducing working hours due to the cost of driving to different schools. An NHS worker reported the challenge of transporting her disabled children to the special educational needs school, and having to cut down on food in order to balance the cost of fuel. A carer reported being unable to attend appointments to give essential care to vulnerable people; a taxi driver was unable to make ends meet. Parents reported having to remove their children from nursery as the cost has become unsustainable, and people have been unable to visit elderly relatives.

Fuel prices have been hitting people across the board. At the same time, businesses have reported that the increased fuel costs have made it more challenging to recover from the losses suffered during the pandemic. Respondents felt that the temporary 5p reduction in fuel duty did not go anywhere near far enough—something that we have heard from many Members today—and was ineffective, as the saving was quickly cancelled out by rising prices. When it comes to the price of fuel, respondents confirmed what we had all concluded about the Government’s actions so far. Following the spring statement and the announcement of a temporary 5p per litre cut in fuel duty, the Chancellor was quick to arrange a glossy photoshoot in a borrowed car at a petrol station forecourt, but the reality is that the 5p cut in fuel duty has been quickly eclipsed by the rapid rise in the overall price of fuel.

As we know and as other hon. Members have said, fuel prices are just one of many pressures hitting people’s lives, and the Government’s response to the cost of living crisis has fallen woefully short of what is needed. People across the UK are seeing the biggest squeeze on their finances in a generation, while at the same time, oil and gas producers’ profits have shot up. As has been widely reported, BP’s chief financial officer said that

“we’re getting more cash than we know what to do with”,

while its chief executive has said that the current rising prices are making BP a “cash machine.” In the first three months of 2022, 28 of the largest oil and gas producers made close to $100 billion in combined profits, with Shell, for instance, making over $9 billion—almost three times what it made in the same period last year.

Faced with oil and gas producers receiving such bumper profits while everyone else suffers the cost of soaring energy bills, Labour has called on the Government to implement a simple, effective and fair solution: levy a windfall tax on oil and gas producers’ profits to help cut people’s bills by up to £600. People need that help, as they are left with no other options. Martin Lewis, the founder of MoneySavingExpert, has said that he no longer has any ideas for how people can save money to cope with the massive surge in the cost of living.

The fact that people are struggling and do not know what to do makes it incredible that the Government have twice voted against Labour’s plans to address this cost of living crisis by imposing a windfall tax on oil and gas producers’ profits. We are left wondering what on earth their objection is, when consensus seems to be growing by the day that a windfall tax is the right thing to do. Current Treasury Ministers may not know what to do, but the previous Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), has said that the arguments against a windfall tax

“at present are very weak.”

He added that Margaret Thatcher would have backed a windfall tax on energy companies.

Of course, in recent weeks, Government Ministers have taken a wide range of positions. We have heard opposition to the plan for a windfall tax from the Health Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the Business Secretary, the Northern Ireland Secretary, the Attorney General, the Minister for Brexit Opportunities and the Deputy Prime Minister, and yet the latest position from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is that

“all options are on the table.”

Every day of delay hurts people across the country. When the Minister responds, I urge her to give some indication of when the inevitable U-turn will happen and the Government will implement a windfall tax. We have been calling for this for months, and we are all waiting for the Government to finally do the right thing.

The Treasury’s failure to act exposes a deeper failing at the heart of Government. While we have been pressing the idea of a costed and effective plan to levy a windfall tax to cut energy bills, the Government are out of ideas and out of touch when it comes to helping people with the hardship they face. The Chancellor needs to get a grip on this situation, so when the Minister responds, I again urge her not to add to the delay, but to simply tell us when the Government will go ahead with the windfall tax that we all know is needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately]

I will move on and keep to the topic of the petition, if that is okay with the hon. Gentleman. Another question that came up earlier, particularly from the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), was on the extent to which the fuel duty cut has been passed through. I am well aware of that concern and the suggestion that suppliers have been taking the benefit of the £2.4 billion tax cut.

To provide some context to this, the spring statement was made at a time of sharp rises in international oil markets, which would have taken some time to feed through to the pump. Diesel has faced specific pressures, because of the particular role of Russian exports in the European market. That has, unfortunately, contributed to diesel reaching all-time high prices this month. The background movement in prices makes the 5p cut harder to see. The Government have been clear that we expect all in the supply chain—from the moment fuel duty is owed to when fuel is bought at the forecourt—to pass the fuel duty cut through to consumers.

The Chancellor and the Business Secretary wrote to industry on the day of the announcement to set out that expectation. The Business Secretary wrote to industry on this matter again last week. The Competition and Markets Authority is closely monitoring the situation. To quote its chief executive, Andrea Coscelli, the CMA stands ready

“to take action should there be evidence that competition or consumer protection law has been broken in the fuel retail market”.

He went on to say that a formal investigation may be considered appropriate,

“which could ultimately lead to fines or legally binding commitments”.

The Government will continue to undertake longer-term analysis to establish the extent to which the Chancellor’s cut may have been buried beneath further wholesale price increases, and to ensure that the market does not fail to pass on the benefits of the duty cut to those refilling at the pump.

I have also heard public discussion of something called PumpWatch to regulate prices at the pump. Some comparisons have been made to Ofgem, the energy regulator, and the role of the price cap in the domestic energy retail market. However, that price cap was introduced in 2019 specifically to correct the market failure identified by the Competition and Markets Authority, which showed that the conditions for effective competition were not present in the market. While the energy price cap has shielded customers from volatile energy prices, it was specifically designed to better protect disengaged customers from being offered poor-value deals.

To date, we have not seen evidence that the same situation is happening in the fuel market, because pump prices are conspicuously displayed outside fuel stations to encourage competition and allow drivers to make comparisons and find the best deals, but I reiterate that if the CMA finds evidence of anti-competitive behaviour in the market, it is clear that it will not hesitate to act.

[James Murray]

As the Minister is drawing to a close, will she take this opportunity to let us know her opinion on our plans for a windfall tax?

Draft Major Sporting Events (Income tax Exemption) (2022 Birmingham Commonwealth Games) Regulations 2022 Draft Major Sporting Events (Income Tax Exemption) (UEFA Women's EURO 2022 Finals) Regulations 2022 Draft Major Sporting Events (Income Tax Exemption) (Finalissima Football Match) Regulations 2022

James Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 20th April 2022 General Committees

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

Thank you, Mr Robertson, for the chance to set out the Opposition’s position on the three statutory instruments.

As we have heard from the Minister, the instruments seek to remove income tax liability for accredited persons who are non-resident in the UK but who earn income in the UK arising from work related to the 2022 Birmingham Commonwealth games, the UEFA women’s Euro 2022 finals, and the Finalissima football match. Beyond the non-residence condition, accreditation entails that the beneficiary of the tax relief works for, or is contracted by, one of the sporting bodies, teams or clubs competing in the competition.

We know that for the Birmingham Commonwealth games the tax exemption would be effective from 1 July until 11 August. We will not oppose the measure, as it is standard practice with world-class sporting events for the host nation to provide certain tax exemptions, not least to avoid the risk of double taxation in the UK and the home nation of the accredited person. It is also important that the UK is seen as an attractive place to host major cultural and sporting occasions, as it has successfully so many times in the past. I very much welcome this year’s Commonwealth games being held in the UK, and I am sure the people of Birmingham will be fantastic hosts.

For the UEFA women’s Euro 2020 finals, the tax exemption would be effective from 1 July until 6 August. For the reasons already mentioned, we will not oppose this measure either. I would, however, like to place on record how pleased I am that the competition will be hosted here in England. Indeed, with games both at Wembley and the Brentford Community Stadium, I hope tickets will be available for my constituents. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what measures will be taken to ensure that the communities local to the competition games will have a fair opportunity to purchase tickets.

Women’s football has gone from strength to strength recently, and I would like to congratulate England forward Ellen White, who scored her 50th England goal earlier this month. She is the first woman to reach that impressive milestone, and did so in emphatic fashion, scoring midway through a 10-0 victory over North Macedonia.

For the Finalissima football match, the tax exemption would be effective from 28 May until 2 June. Again, we will not oppose the measure. This is a football match held between the winners of the UEFA European Championship and the Copa América, and so this year Wembley will play host to Italy versus Argentina on 1 June. I know that previously the world football governing body, FIFA, abolished the competition, but I am pleased that the 2020 memorandum of understanding between the European and South American bodies, UEFA and CONMEBOL, has led to this iconic fixture. I am glad that London—our capital city that is home to so many people from all around the world—will host this international match.

Draft Social Security (Contributions) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2022

James Murray Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2022 General Committees

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

Thank you, Mr Hosie, for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Opposition as we consider delegated legislation relating to the rate of national insurance. As we have heard from the Minister, the purpose of these regulations is to amend existing regulations that relate to the reduced rate of primary class 1 national insurance contributions payable by certain married women and widows. The intention of these regulations is to increase that rate, in line with the wider increase to national insurance introduced by the Health and Social Care Levy Act 2021.

There is a long history of debates about the operation and impact of the married women’s reduced rate. These regulations, however, affect only its rate in the year 2022-23, raising this by 1.25 percentage points, from 5.85% to 7.1%. I will stay within the scope of these regulations by focusing on its rate and the impact that this increase could have.

Since the Government decided to increase national insurance by 1.25 percentage points last September, we have repeatedly pressed the Chancellor to think again. We did so most recently at the spring statement and during consideration of the National Insurance Contributions (Increase of Thresholds) Bill last week. We have urged the Government time and again to accept that their national insurance hike is the worst possible tax rise at the worst possible time—it is due to start operating just days after energy bills will soar by an average of over £600, and with inflation already at its highest in decades. We have repeatedly urged the Chancellor and his team to think again and ask those with the broadest shoulders to contribute more, rather than forcing a tax hike on working people. As we know, the Government have resolutely refused to change course, and next week tax will rise for 27 million working people.

Today’s regulations are a final sting in the tail for that tax rise. They will apply the rise in national insurance to what is likely to be a very small number of women, but a group who will see a disproportionately high tax rise. We know that the national insurance tax rise is 1.25 percentage points. For workers paying the standard rate of national insurance, which is currently 12%, that is a rise of just over 10%. For those paying the married women’s reduced rate of 5.85%, however, the increase that we are debating today is, in fact, a tax rise of more than 20%.

Yet in the notes accompanying these regulations, the Government have not set out any detail of the impact that this tax rise will have on the specific group of women they believe will be affected. The notes rely instead on a general reference to the tax information and impact note published alongside the Health and Social Care Levy Bill. I would therefore like to ask the Minister—I am repeating the questions put forward by my hon. Friends—to set out now, or in the coming weeks by way of written reply, further detail on who will be affected by the tax rise that we are debating today, and how.

According to an article published in the Financial Times in 2019, a freedom of information request elicited information from HMRC to confirm that there were still around 200 women in the UK paying the reduced rate at that time. It therefore seems certain that HMRC has data on how many women are still paying that rate today.

I would also like the Minister to respond with further information giving more detail about this group of women affected, from HMRC or any other appropriate source, including: their average earnings, the kinds of jobs they are doing, and details of their wealth or level of deprivation. That is important information to know, as we are being asked to approve a tax increase of 20% on this group of older married women or widows. We know from Office for National Statistics research that widows are among those people in society most likely to have the poorest personal wellbeing.

We cannot support today’s regulations. We have opposed the increase in national insurance across the board at every opportunity since its introduction. As I said earlier, today’s regulations feel like the final sting in the tail—having raised the national insurance rate by 10% for working people across the country, the Chancellor’s team is today raising it by over 20% for a small group of older women and widows. The national insurance hike continues to be the worst possible tax rise at the worst possible time, and we will be opposing these regulations today.

National Insurance Contributions (Increase of Thresholds) Bill

James Murray Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 24th March 2022 Commons Chamber

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

As we debate the Bill, I cannot help but notice it is becoming a bad habit of this Chancellor to rush national insurance legislation through Parliament in a day. A little over six months ago, I stood here setting out the view of the Opposition on the Government’s Health and Social Care Levy Bill, which was similarly rushed through all its stages in just one day. As we know well, that Bill introduced a new levy that would be preceded by an equivalent increase in national insurance contributions for employees and employers of 1.25%. Since that national insurance increase was agreed, it has become ever clearer that it will be the worst possible tax rise at the worst possible time.

The Opposition will support today’s Bill, as any help for people facing the Chancellor’s national insurance tax hike in April is something we welcome. There are benefits to raising the threshold at which people begin to pay national insurance, but we should be conscious that the Bill has more to do with the Chancellor’s increasingly desperate desire to paint himself as a tax cutter than it does with a well-thought-through package of measures to help people with the struggles they face. Even after the Bill passes, the tax burden in our country will still be at its highest in 70 years, and we are still the only G7 country to be raising taxes on working people this year. The Chancellor is making sleights of hand his speciality. As the Office for Budget Responsibility has pointed out, for every £6 he has taken in tax since he took on that role, yesterday he gave back just £1.

The Chancellor has realised that his national insurance hike in April is wrong. Labour could have told him that six months ago. In fact, that is exactly what I told the Minister in September last year when we debated the Health and Social Care Levy Bill. We set out clearly our decision to vote against that Bill on Second Reading. We set out how it broke the Government’s promise not to increase national insurance, and instead raised taxes on employment that would disproportionately hit working families, young people, those on lower and middle incomes, and businesses trying to create more jobs in the wider economy, while leaving income from other sources untouched. We were not alone in criticising that tax rise. The British Chamber of Commerce warned:

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

At the same time the TUC general secretary, Frances O’Grady, criticised the Prime Minister for

“raiding the pockets of low-paid workers, while leaving the wealthy barely touched.”

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that 14% of the highest earners in this country will pay 50% of the levy?

[James Murray]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have debated the increase in national insurance at length, and today we are debating the package of measures that the Chancellor brought forward. Overnight analysis by the Resolution Foundation, which he would do well to consult, recognises that seven in eight workers will pay more in tax and national insurance in 2024-25, as a result of decisions taken by this Chancellor and this Government.

[Alberto Costa]

At the outset of his speech, the hon. Gentleman criticised the Chancellor for being a tax cutter, yet he is now critical because the tax burden has increased. He has not yet answered the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies), so perhaps he can have a second go.

[James Murray]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are critical of the Chancellor for his desperate attempts to appear to be a tax cutter, despite the fact that the tax burden in this country is now at its highest in 70 years. [Interruption.] Let me make some progress. It is clear that the increase in national insurance proposed by the Health and Social Care Levy Bill last year was wrong, not only because we said it was, but because the Government’s own analysis concluded it was wrong. I am sure that at the time Ministers read their own tax information and impact note, which was signed off personally by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. That note applied the so-called family test to this levy, and concluded:

“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.”

As the current Financial Secretary to the Treasury will know, I have tabled several written questions, asking the Government to publish the complete family test assessment prepared for the levy. Her most recent response stated:

“Family Test assessments are not routinely published. Decisions on whether and how to publish complete Family Test assessments fall within the responsibility of each Government Department. HMRC have no further plans to publish a Family Test assessment on the Health and Social Care Levy.”

When she responds, I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that she will now instruct HMRC to publish that family test assessment. If she refuses to do so, I would be grateful if she explained why she is blocking its publication.

[Matt Rodda]

I am grateful for the work that my hon. Friend is carrying out on this important matter, because it seems fundamental to look at the impact on families. In my constituency of Reading East there is enormous pressure on families, many of whom are in work and on modest incomes, but are struggling to get by because of increased prices, so I thank my hon. Friend for his work.

[James Murray]

I know that my hon. Friend is a champion for his constituents, and in challenging the Government about the harm that their decisions will do to the people he represents.

[Jacob Young]

Let me take the hon. Gentleman back a few moments. He said that he was not debating the national insurance levy, and then he continued to debate the national insurance levy. On the subject of the national insurance levy, what would Labour do instead to fund the national health service? I have yet to see any sort of plan from the Opposition.

[James Murray]

I do not recall whether the hon. Gentleman was present in the debate on the health and social care levy, but if he was, he would have heard us set out that any increase in taxation should fall on those with the broadest shoulders, not directly on working people. This Government are laying the worst possible tax rise at the worst possible time on the shoulders of working people. In the long run, the way to fund public services sustainably is through growth, but this Government have become a low-growth Government, and therefore a high-tax Government. That is the truth of their economic model, and that is what we would seek to change.

Since September, when the Health and Social Care Levy Bill was pushed through Parliament, our arguments against April’s national insurance hike have only got stronger. The difficulties that people face in making ends meet have been mounting by the day. Inflation jumped again yesterday from 5.5% to 6.2%, with the OBR now forecasting it to hit 7.4% this year—the highest rate in 30 years. Energy bills that have been rising rapidly are set to soar next month, and the crisis in Ukraine will put even greater pressure on the cost of energy, petrol, and food. The pressure on the Chancellor to change course has been rapidly growing, yet he has backed himself into a corner. He has nailed his colours to the mast, stubbornly refusing to reconsider his deeply unfair national insurance hike, and that seems to be how we have ended up where we are today.

We have a Chancellor who has found himself politically unable to cancel his national insurance hike, yet also unable to ignore the fact that this is the worst possible tax rise at the worst possible time. That is why he has tried to respond by making these changes to national insurance thresholds, with promises of further tax cuts at some point in the future. Whatever the merits of the individual measures, that approach is driven not by what may be the right thing to help people now, but by the Chancellor’s desperate ambition to portray himself as a tax cutter, despite all evidence to the contrary.

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

In light of the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to reducing the tax burden on hard-working people, will he join me in calling for the scrapping of Andy Burnham’s clean air zone tax in Greater Manchester. That is a tax on business and jobs, so does he agree that it needs to be scrapped now?

[James Murray]

We have had a number of comments about what is within the scope of this debate, and I suspect that issue is rather out of scope. I will focus on national insurance and the Chancellor’s spring statement yesterday, and matters related directly to that.

Following the spring statement and the package announced by the Chancellor yesterday, Torsten Bell, chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, stated:

“This package only makes sense if:

- your only test for policy choices was can you prove you’re a tax cutter

- you’ve already announced a rise in National Insurance.”

Overnight analysis by the Resolution Foundation has set out the stark truth that considering all income tax changes to thresholds and rates announced by the Chancellor, seven in eight workers will pay more in income tax and national insurance in 2024-25.

[Sally-Ann Hart]

If the Opposition had to plan for a spring statement, would they rule out raising income tax?

[James Murray]

We have made it very clear that we believe in a fair taxation system. The key point for us in the Chancellor’s package is that he is raising taxes for working people, while ruling out measures such as our one-off windfall tax on the profits of North sea oil and gas producers. That is not a fair taxation system.

The inescapable truth is that whatever the Chancellor puts on his Instagram account, he has left Britain facing the highest tax burden in 70 years. As Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said yesterday:

“almost all workers will be paying more tax on their earnings in 2025 than they would have been paying without this Parliament’s reforms to income tax and NICs, despite the tax cutting measures announced today.”

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has calculated that median earners on around £27,500 can expect, even after the increase in national insurance thresholds, to be £400 worse off in the coming financial year. The Office for Budget Responsibility has confirmed that this year will see the biggest hit to incomes on record. That will be the true legacy of this Chancellor, not the phoney tax-cutting image that he has been so desperate to cultivate.

Although today we are debating national insurance thresholds, and the impact that will have on people’s lives, there is much more that the Chancellor simply failed to address in his spring statement. We have been repeatedly pushing the Chancellor to levy a one-off windfall tax on North sea oil and gas producers’ profits, to help fund a one-off cut to people’s energy bills. Our plans would cut everyone’s bill by £200 and would do so by £600 for the 9 million households facing the toughest squeeze.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. It is worth putting that last point in context. The chief executive of BP made it clear that there absolutely was a windfall: the company had become a “cash machine” because of the massive rise in revenues resulting from the significant increase in the price of a barrel of oil. There is a huge opportunity to take a windfall tax now. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should also have looked at the supermarkets during the pandemic?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is a huge opportunity to levy a one-off windfall tax on North sea oil and gas producers’ profits. Yet there was no mention of such a tax in yesterday’s statement.

[Jacob Young]

rose—

[Gareth Davies]

rose—

[James Murray]

I am going to make some progress. The record shows that the Chancellor likes putting up taxes. He has been busily defending his tax rise on working people, but when it comes to oil and gas profits he is suddenly nowhere to be seen.

[Jacob Young]

rose—

[Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)]

rose—

[James Murray]

I give way to the hon. Lady; the hon. Gentleman has already made several comments.

[Sarah Atherton]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I am interested in what the Opposition are saying about not raising taxes. Will he explain why the Welsh Labour Government have not ruled out tax rises? It is in their discretion to do so, but they are not considering doing that until after the May elections.

[James Murray]

I repeat a principle I mentioned earlier to the hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly): the remit of the Bill is national insurance and related matters, such as the spring statement yesterday. I will continue to focus my remarks on those.

The windfall tax that we have been pushing the Chancellor to adopt would fund support for people who need help with their energy bills now. As we have long said, alongside that immediate help we urgently need more investment in alternative sources of energy and insulation for our homes. That investment would help to cut energy bills in the longer run, as well as improving our energy independence and security. Yet on that front, the Chancellor has been all but silent, too.

Yesterday, the Chancellor announced a cut in VAT for energy-saving materials, but I do not think anyone believes that that is anywhere near enough to help the majority of families upgrade their homes. Our pledge, by contrast, is to invest £6 billion each year for 10 years to upgrade 19 million homes. That would cut energy bills by up to £400 a year while cutting gas imports by 15% too. That is the kind of transformational programme that our country needs.

[Alberto Costa]

Would it not have been better for the Labour Administration to have approved new nuclear power stations? We would not be in this mess today had it not been for Labour’s failures in the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, his party has been in power for the past 12 years. We have set out clearly that we would end the delay in new nuclear power alongside introducing greater onshore and offshore wind power and solar energy.

[Matt Western]

On that point, the Labour Government were the first to put in place the Climate Change Act 2008—that is, the first globally to introduce legislation that would address the need to switch to a more renewable energy sector. I remind Government Members that the Labour Government put in place the zero carbon homes legislation, which was torn up by the coalition Government. If that had still been in place in 2016 to 2021, 1 million new zero carbon new homes would have been built, which would have reduced our energy need.

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for making an important point about the last Labour Government and drawing attention to the lack of action from this Government in pursuing investment in renewable energy sources, which would cut energy bills and give us greater energy security and independence.

We need a Chancellor who is prepared to levy a one-off windfall tax to help cut people’s energy bills now and invest what is needed to cut bills in the long run. Instead, yesterday, we saw neither.

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

rose—

[James Murray]

I am going to make some progress.

Perhaps the most desperate part of the Chancellor’s pitch yesterday was his claim that “the work starts today”. The Conservatives have been in power for 12 years: 12 years of incomes being squeezed under Conservative Governments, 12 years of failure on energy efficiency and 12 years of low growth. The truth is that, even now, when he is apparently “starting work”, the man who lost £11.8 billion of public money to fraud has once again proved that he is not up to the task.

This week, the Chancellor failed to scrap the tax rise on working people. He failed to introduce a windfall tax, and he failed to set out a plan to support British businesses. People deserve better. People need a Government who are on their side.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call Richard Drax.

National Insurance Contributions (Increase of Thresholds) Bill

James Murray Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Richard Thomson]

The SNP is generally supportive of all the amendments that have been tabled, and I echo the comments of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who made a number of points about the importance of understanding the intended purpose and impact of legislation before it takes effect. I made that point ad nauseam during the passage of two Finance Bills, but I keep returning to it because it is important that we understand what we are doing and that we avoid, as far as possible, the law of unintended consequences.

Quite apart from the evidence base they would provide for legislative scrutiny, the amendments might provide a corrective to the poor policy choices that Ministers have made in recent times.

[James Murray]

As I said on Second Reading, we will support the Bill, but I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and my hon. Friends the Members for Reading East (Matt Rodda) and for Eltham (Clive Efford) for their important points about the impact the Bill will have. We recognise that raising the thresholds for national insurance contributions has benefits, and we welcome any help for people facing the Chancellor’s national insurance hike in April.

The explanatory notes explain that the increase to the primary thresholds for class 1 national insurance contributions and the lower profits limit for class 4 contributions will require changes to the systems of employers and HMRC, including those designed to facilitate pay-as-you-earn. The explanatory notes also explain that the Bill is being fast-tracked to give employers and HMRC as much time as possible to implement the changes, helping to make sure people are not overtaxed, and they confirm that the speed with which the Bill is going through Parliament means, unsurprisingly, there has been no consultation.

Although it is, of course, right to give employers and HMRC as much time as possible, the explanatory notes underline that the changes are being made very late in the day. Indeed, as we will come to later, the decision to implement this change from 6 July rather than 6 April reflects the last-minute nature of the Chancellor’s proposals. This approach to legislation does not inspire confidence that he is in control and has a well thought-through package to help people who are struggling to make ends meet. Indeed, it gives the impression of a Chancellor who has made the wrong choices and is now scrabbling at the eleventh hour to limit the damage.

Of course, according to the Chancellor, he only started work yesterday. He seemed proud to claim ahead of the spring statement that “the work starts today,” but the truth is that his choices have been hitting working people for far longer, and the Conservatives’ choices have been hitting our country for 12 years.

Clause 1 amends the Social Security (Contributions) Regulations 2001 to align the primary threshold for class 1 national insurance contributions with the income tax personal allowance. As I said, we support this measure as we recognise that raising the thresholds for national insurance contributions has benefits, and we welcome any help for people facing the Chancellor’s national insurance hike in April. However, this clause draws attention to the fact that the change to the primary threshold will not come into force until 6 July 2022. Indeed, subsection (4) explicitly states that the changes made to the primary threshold

“do not affect any liability to primary Class 1 contributions for any tax week commencing before that date”.

There will therefore be three months during which the Chancellor’s hike in national insurance will be in place, and hitting people’s pockets, and the changes to the primary threshold will not yet have taken effect. As I said a few moments ago, people looking at this will conclude that we have a Chancellor who knows he has made the wrong choices and is now scrambling around at the eleventh hour to limit the damage. So I wish to press the Minister on a few points about how and when the decision was taken to implement the threshold increase from July.

First, I have a simple question: when was a decision taken by the Chancellor to raise the threshold? Did he wake up on 23 March, the day he says was his first day of work, and make the decision then? Or had a policy decision been taken by the Treasury earlier, meaning that it could have been implemented earlier too? I realise the Minister may respond by trying to claim that announcements about changes to tax levels are made only at fiscal events, but that is not the case; the national insurance increase coming in April was announced by way of an unscheduled statement by the Prime Minister in September last year, and the arising legislation was pushed through Parliament in a day one week later.

If the Chancellor had decided to raise thresholds earlier this month, or even earlier this year, could his decision not have been announced and legislated for sooner? If that had been the case, these new thresholds could be in place from April, or at some point sooner than July, providing at least some extra help for people in the critical three months ahead when NI is being hiked and energy bills are set to soar. There are only two explanations possible for what has happened: either the Chancellor made the decision about thresholds only on the morning of 23 March, or he made it earlier, yet sat on it, when he could have acted to help people sooner. I would like the Minister to tell me which account is true. Given that the Bill introduces the threshold increase from 6 July, I would also be grateful if the Minister explained what consideration was given to backdating the increase to April. Is that an option that the Chancellor considered? If so, why was it discounted, and if it was not considered, why not?

Clause 2 raises the lower profits limit for class 4 contributions and ultimately aligns it with the income tax personal allowance. As before, we support this measure as we recognise that raising the thresholds for national insurance contributions has benefits, and we welcome any help for people facing the Chancellor’s NI tax hike in April. I note that the changes to the threshold for self-employed people’s class 4 contributions take effect in two stages. First, the lower profits limit is raised from £9,880 to £11,908 from April 2022, and then it is raised again to £12,570 in April 2023. The figure of £11,908 represents, as far as I can tell, a blended average for 2022-23 of the lower profits limit continuing at the level previously intended until July, and then being raised to £12,570 for the remaining months of the year. As with class 1 contributions, we will therefore have three months during which the Chancellor’s NI hike will be in place and hitting people’s pockets, yet the changes to the threshold will not yet have taken effect. I therefore ask the Minister again: are people missing out because the Chancellor made the decision about thresholds only on the morning of 23 March, or did he make that decision earlier, yet sat on it, when he could have acted to help people sooner?

Clause 3 gives the Treasury the power to make regulations to align the threshold for paying class 2 NICs with the lower profits limit. This clause also enables the Treasury to make sure that self-employed people with profits between the small profit threshold and the lower profits limit will continue to be able to build up NI credits but will not pay any class 2 national insurance contributions. As with the other changes in this Bill, we support this measure as we recognise the benefits of raising the thresholds. I would like, however, to press the Minister on two technical points that arise from clause 3. First, why are the changes to class 2 contributions to be made by way of regulations, rather than being implemented through this Bill? I note that clause 5(3) seems to make it clear that regulations arising from clause 3 will, as they would amend Acts of Parliament, have to be laid before and approved by a resolution of each House. Will the Minister explain why the detail on clause 3 will therefore be decided a later stage, and not with the class 1 and class 4 changes today? Secondly, clause 3(2)(b) makes it clear that the changes to class 2 contributions may be made to have retrospective provision from 6 April 2022. So why is it possible to backdate changes to class 2 contributions to April 2022, yet changes to class 1 and class 4 contributions can take effect only from July?

The remaining clauses include clause 4, which makes transitional and consequential provisions that are reasonable in the context of the Bill; clause 5, on which I have touched, relating to the making of regulations; and clause 6, on the short title. Before I close my speech, I should point out that nothing in those clauses addresses the secondary threshold for employers. We have warned since the national insurance hike was introduced that it would be a tax on working people and their jobs, yet none of the Bill’s clauses address the level at which employers will have to pay the raised rate of national insurance. We know from the Office of Budget Responsibility that this is not just an issue for employers who want to create jobs; the rise in employers’ national insurance contributions will also hit workers through a double whammy, as the increase is passed on by way of lower wages and higher prices.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Just in the last seven days, we have learned that 7 billion items of personal protective equipment were not fit for purpose, the Government are burning 500 lorryloads of it a month and former Treasury Minister Lord Agnew admitted that the lack of anti-fraud measures in the Government’s covid business support packages meant it was

“happy days if you were a crook”.

When billions of pounds of public money have been lost through the Chancellor’s incompetence, is the Minister ashamed to be hiking taxes on working people by billions of pounds next month?

[Mr Clarke]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the situation in regard to PPE. Over 97% of the stock that was ordered was suitable for use. Indeed, when it comes to the wider figure covering the PPE piece, £4.7 billion of that represents PPE that will be used by the NHS, but which was procured at a greater price than it carries today owing to the scarcity that prevailed at that time, and another £3.3 billion represents PPE that can be used in non-medical settings, and the Department of Health and Social Care has already sold and donated stock in this category.

On the wider fraud point, this goes back to my earlier answer that we had to design these schemes at pace to protect jobs—I think this was agreed across the House—and we rightly, I think, made sure that that was the priority. We then built in the protections that were needed, and the protections have made sure that we are able to pursue anyone who has defrauded the taxpayer.

National Insurance Contributions Increase

James Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2022 Commons Chamber

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

Today, we have heard from hon. Members representing people across the country about why it is so important that the Government cancel their national insurance hike on working people and their jobs. My hon. Friends the Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones), for Easington (Grahame Morris), for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) and for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) all spoke powerfully about how so many of their constituents are struggling with the costs of living and how those pressures have been rising rapidly in recent months. My hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) and for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) spoke about the fundamental unfairness of the Government’s approach with their national insurance hike.

In September last year, the Government pushed their national insurance hike through Parliament in a day. From the very start, it was clear that this was a deeply unfair tax hike that would hit working people and their jobs. We urged the Government to think again and reverse course, but they refused do so, and they have kept refusing to reverse course, despite people facing mounting difficulties in making ends meet. Inflation, already at its highest rate in decades, is forecast to hit 8% in April. Energy bills that have been rising rapidly are set to soar next month, and now the crisis in Ukraine will bring even greater pressure on the cost of energy, petrol and food. Yet in four weeks’ time, the Government’s tax rise will kick in, costing the average family £500 a year. It is the worst possible tax rise at the worst possible time.

Back in September when the Government pushed this tax rise through Parliament, we immediately knew how unfair it would be. The Government’s own published assessment of this tax rise made that clear. Their tax information and impact note, which Ministers had to approve, set out what effect this tax rise would have. The note looked at this tax rise from a number of angles, including how it performed against the Government’s so-called family test. As hon. Members may remember, the family test was introduced by David Cameron in 2014. When the then Prime Minister announced this new test, he said he wanted to

“strengthen and support family life in Britain”.

His plan to do so was to make sure that

“every single domestic policy that government comes up with will be examined for its impact on the family.”

That test was applied to the national insurance increase last September, and the outcome of that test was to warn of

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

That warning alone should have given Conservative MPs reason to stop in their tracks and think again. They should have stopped and listened to the Institute for Fiscal Studies warning of this tax rise involving

“a large, unjustified and problematic bias against employment and labour incomes”.

They should have listened to the TUC general secretary, Frances O’Grady, warning of the hit faced by young and low-paid workers with this tax rise. They could have listened to any of the many voices against their plans, as the impact of this tax rise on people’s ability to make ends meet was clear back in September.

The impact on jobs and businesses was clear then, too. Again, the Government’s own assessment made that clear. It admitted the tax rise would impact on business decisions on wage bills and recruitment. The Federation of Small Businesses described the tax rise as

“devastating for small businesses and the local communities they serve.”

The British Chambers of Commerce described it as a

“hammer blow to jobs growth”.

Despite all those warnings, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor refused to think again. The Conservatives refused to listen to our calls for those with the broadest shoulders to contribute more. Their response to the low-growth, high-tax economic cycle they have created was to make working people foot the bill.

Even if some Conservative Members managed to hold their noses and vote with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor last September, it is astonishing that they still feel able to do so after all that has happened since then. Energy bills have been rising fast and now are set to soar. We know that energy bills will rise by an average of more than £600 this April. Inflation is already—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I said this a few minutes ago but as I have a larger audience I think it is worth repeating. We have been having a debate, the shadow Minister and the Minister are responding to that debate, and hon. and right hon. Members want to hear what they have to say. I hope those present will do them the courtesy of being quiet, so we can listen to the shadow Minister first and then the Minister.

[James Murray]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I said, if Conservative Members managed to hold their noses last September to vote with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, it is truly astonishing that they still feel able to do so now after all that has happened. Energy bills have been rising fast and are set to rise by more than £600 in April. Inflation is at its highest rate in decades and is set to rocket to 8% next month.

What is more, the Government’s arguments that they need this money for social care have been left in tatters. Not only have they failed to produce a plan to fix social care, but we know that Ministers looked the other way as billions of pounds of public money were handed out to fraudsters and written off. They ignored the warnings on fraud, they were careless with waste and they are now expecting working people to foot the bill for their mistakes.

If that was not bad enough, it is now clear that private sector workers will be asked to pay twice. As our new analysis shows, private sector workers will face a double whammy as almost all the rise in their employers’ contributions is set to be passed on to workers through lower wages.

Ministers, and indeed some of their Back Benchers, often try to pretend that the cost of living crisis is entirely the result of global factors, but that argument simply does not hold true. Most damagingly, it ignores the fact that the Government could, and should, be doing far more to help people to make ends meet. The truth is that decisions by this Government over many years have left us uniquely exposed to rising gas prices. From cutting gas storage, to leaving our homes poorly insulated and failing to invest in renewables and nuclear, this Government’s approach means that rising energy costs hit people in the UK much harder than they should.

The truth is that the Government have failed to step up and offer people the help they need with energy bills now. Labour’s plan is to give everyone £200 and those in greatest need £600 to help to meet energy costs. That would be funded with a one-off windfall tax on North sea oil and gas producers’ profits. The alternative from the Chancellor is to land everyone with a buy now, pay later loan and to announce a council tax rebate that some of those in the greatest need will never even see.

The truth is that, when it comes to the tax rise we are debating today—an unfair tax rise on working people, a tax rise of £500 for the average family, a tax rise on businesses and jobs—the responsibility begins and ends here. Conservative MPs voted six months ago for that tax rise. Last week, the Minister admitted to me that the Government recognise the impact the tax rise will have on working people. Today, they have a chance to change course.

Today, we are asking all Members to join us in asking the Government to think again. When the Government first introduced this tax rise on working people and their jobs, it was blindingly unfair. Far from asking those with the broadest shoulders to contribute more, the Tories showed their true colours and went straight for a tax rise on 27 million working people. Since then, the case against the tax rise has got stronger and stronger. With energy bills rising and about to soar and with inflation set to hit 8%, the struggle for millions of people to make ends meet is getting harder by the day. Now is the time to change course and help people to face the tough months ahead. Now is the time to send a message to the Chancellor ahead of his Budget on 23 March. Now is finally the time to do the right thing and cancel this unfair tax rise.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

James Murray Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 1st March 2022 Commons Chamber

Lords amendments 10, 11 and 12 relate to changes the Government are proposing in response to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report on the Bill. These Government amendments, tabled in the other place, provide for additional parliamentary scrutiny over certain powers in the Bill. Our approach here demonstrates the seriousness we place on those recommendations and the Government’s commitment to act upon them. Lords amendment 10 ensures that regulations to specify future self-isolation support schemes that would be exempt from self-employment NICs under clause 10 must be subject to the negative procedure. Originally, these regulations were subject to no procedure. Lords amendments 11 and 12 provide for regulations under clause 3(1) and 6(6) to be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. Regulations may be made under these powers to extend the end date of the freeport and veterans’ relief. These powers were previously subject to the negative procedure. So I hope that hon. Members will agree with the position I have set out today.

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

I thank the Minister for setting out the reasoning behind the Government’s amendments in the other place. Although we support many of the measures in this Bill, we cannot ignore the fact that we are discussing the Government’s plans for specific relief from NICs just one month before they raise national insurance for workers and businesses across the board. That is the crucial context for the Lords amendments we are being asked to consider.

Five weeks from today, a typical full-time worker will see their annual tax bill rise by £274. That will be the direct result of the Government’s decision to raise NI. It is the worst possible tax rise, at the worst possible time. We argued it was wrong last September, when the Government pushed this tax rise through Parliament. Since then, energy bills have begun to soar, making our case even stronger. Now, as we stand alongside the Ukrainian people, we know that that conflict will impact people here, with further price rises for petrol, energy and food. The Conservatives must think again. The impact of their NI hike is getting worse and worse. The Chancellor should finally do the right thing and scrap April’s tax rise on businesses and working people.

As we said when this Bill was being debated in the Commons last year, we support the intention behind many of its measures. However, throughout its passage, we and our colleagues in the other place have raised important questions with Ministers about some of the approaches the Government have decided to take. With that in mind, I turn to Lords amendments 2 and 4, which were successful in the other place and which we will be supporting here today. Lords amendment 2 seeks to add one further condition to those that already exist in the Bill for freeports. When it was introduced, this Bill included the conditions under which employers in a freeport could benefit from a zero rate of secondary class 1 NICs. This amendment adds one further condition to freeport employers’ relief. It would make sure this relief is available only if the freeport maintains a public record of the beneficial ownership of businesses operating within it. We, alongside right hon. and hon. Members from across the House, have long argued for transparency over the ownership of UK assets. In recent days, that has come to a head, with the Government finally admitting and accepting the urgent importance of establishing a public register of the overseas owners of UK property. Yesterday, when the Business Secretary made a statement to the House on “Corporate Transparency and Economic Crime”, no one could deny the damage caused by the Government’s failing to prioritise transparency of the overseas ownership of UK interests. As my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) told the House yesterday, although we clearly support the Government’s introducing a register of overseas owners of UK property, we are clear that:

“The UK would have been in a much stronger position to act with speed and our national security would have been better protected if the register had already been up and running.”—[Official Report, 28 February 2022; Vol. 709, c. 736.]

As my hon. Friend went on to say yesterday, we hope lessons will be learned for the future. The Government have a chance today to prove that they have learned those lessons. Let us avoid their pressing ahead today without that transparency condition, only to return to the matter in a rush at a later date when the opportunity for greatest impact may already have been missed. That is why we will support Lords amendment 2, and I urge Government Ministers and hon. Members on all sides to do likewise.

I turn now to Lords amendment 4, which was also successful in the other place and which we will support today. The Government’s Bill introduces a zero rate of national insurance contributions for employers of armed forces veterans for the period of one year beginning with the earner’s first day of civilian employment after leaving the armed forces. We believe it is crucial to ensure that all veterans get the support they need as they seek civilian employment.

Lords amendment 4 enables the Treasury to change the period of support offered if it is found to support employment. We believe it is a simple measure, giving the Government flexibility to adjust the operation of the relief if doing so might improve veterans’ ability to find long-term employment.

As the Financial Secretary may know, when the Bill was debated in the Commons last year we raised questions about the time period for which the relief would be available. When I discussed this Bill with her predecessor, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), I asked him to explain in greater detail why the Government had chosen a period of one year for veterans’ employers. In response, he said that one year was appropriate because,

“the goal is to support a very specific process of transition”.

When we pressed him further on the importance of helping to maintain long-term employment, he acknowledged:

“If it were the case that veterans still had a serious problem of finding secure and stable employment, of course that would be a matter that the Government would wish to reflect on and consider.”

He assured me and several of my hon. Friends that he would,

“continue to reflect on this policy”,

and that those at the Treasury,

“already have in place processes of evaluation and assessment.”––[Official Report, National Insurance Contributions Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2021; c. 18-20.]

I am sure the right hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer) will want to honour those commitments made by her predecessor.

Through Lords amendment 4, we seek simply to give the Government the power to change the period of relief, should their ongoing analysis conclude it is in the best interests of veterans to do so. On that basis, I urge the Financial Secretary and her colleagues to reconsider the Government’s position. I hope that Ministers and hon. Members on the Government Benches will see the value that Lords amendments 2 and 4 add to this Bill and that, even at this late stage, they might reconsider their position on them.

I end by urging Ministers to ensure that next time we are in this Chamber with national insurance on the Order Paper, it will be to agree to cancel the tax rise coming next month. The Chancellor has five weeks to do the right thing—five weeks to change his mind and avoid hitting working people and businesses with the worst possible tax rise at the worst possible time.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

I rise to support Lords amendments 2 and 4, but I will deal first with amendment 4.

As I said at earlier stages of this Bill, those who have experience of serving within the armed forces bring tremendous qualities to the workforce through both the skills they have learned while in uniform and their breadth of life experience. Despite our awareness of that and the best efforts of Governments and the third sector, for too many of our ex-servicemen who are leaving the services, the transition to civvy street is far more difficult than it often needs to be.

Having this exemption for national insurance contributions is therefore a very positive step as far as we are concerned, making it even more attractive to employers to hire those ex-service personnel and to bring their skills and experience into the workforce, helping to bring to fruition all the many economic and social benefits that can come from that. In that regard, we are attracted to Lords amendment 4 simply because it gives the Treasury that power to extend the eligibility period attached to the zero rate relief for armed forces personnel and veterans, should that be deemed desirable. That seems to us to be a perfectly reasonable addition to make to the Bill, giving the Treasury a degree of flexibility on how to implement the measure that would otherwise be lacking in the Bill as drafted.

On amendment 2, let me first place on record my satisfaction at the agreement that has eventually been reached by the Scottish Government and the UK Government over freeports, or green ports, of which two will now be established in Scotland, with the bidding process opening in spring this year and the first sites opening, hopefully, in spring 2023. I will go a little bit off piste here to say that that outcome was not always guaranteed, and at times, in at least some of the public discussions, there has been a bit more war-war than jaw-jaw, certainly on the part of individual Conservative politicians rather than between Ministers in Edinburgh and London. For example, the Scottish Business Minister, Ivan McKee, had to write six times to the UK Government to even try to get green port discussions under way in order to get them over the line. He said that the silence was deafening. That is a pretty damning account that rather sits at odds with the impression that we are often given from those on the Treasury Bench as to how they would like to work constructively with the Scottish Government.

The reason for holding out on the variation on the freeports option was quite simple. We felt very strongly that given the scale of the financial support that was on offer, it was vital to ensure that wider policy objectives such as environmental obligations, the commitment to net zero and fair play for those employed within freeport sites, were met. While it is up to the UK Government to decide how those objectives can be met in England, applicants for green port status in Scotland will be required to set out robust plans at the outset on how they plan to contribute to Scotland’s just transition to a net zero economy and how they will benefit the wider supply chain alongside embedding fair working practices such as at least paying the real living wage.

Freeports, it is fair to say, have had a somewhat mixed reception abroad, particularly as regards the relationship that they are perceived to have with criminality and tax evasion. While hardly the “Grand Theft Auto”-style dystopia that they have sometimes been portrayed as, the potential for criminality and non-compliance with taxation, employment rights, health and safety or environmental regulations and obligations is clear, as is the potential for broader economic displacement.

That brings me to the nub of amendment 2. In recent weeks, we have seen significantly increased demand from this House for scrutiny and visibility of financial transactions that take place in this country. We need to have that increased scrutiny over those who spend and invest in the UK, and also over where their money originates. It is very important when setting up freeports that we are able to answer the age-old question, “cui bono?” That is absolutely paramount. A requirement that the freeport deliverance body should be able to make reasonable efforts to verify who the beneficial owners of the business are and to ensure that that information is accessible not just to the relevant enforcement agencies but to the general public is the minimum amount of due diligence that we should expect in exchange for the status and the exemptions on offer.

I listened carefully to the Minister’s arguments about the beneficial register that will be in place and her view that as a third party under the local governance arrangements it would be inappropriate to release that information. Respectfully, I disagree with that. We all know how labyrinthine and byzantine corporate structures can be. Irrespective of any requirement in future legislation that may be coming into force, certainly on freeports, my party firmly believes that we should have transparency and accountability baked into the corporate structure and public reporting at the outset. On that basis, both Lords amendments have our support and we shall be voting accordingly.