Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between James Murray and Richard Fuller

2nd reading
Wednesday 17th April 2024 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

How times change!

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

[Richard Fuller]

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

[James Murray]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

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

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

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

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

[James Murray]

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

[Richard Fuller]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

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

[Richard Fuller]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) (No. 2) Bill

Debate between James Murray and Richard Fuller

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 13th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

No, I am going to make some progress.

The public deserve to know whether the Prime Minister’s commitment to abolish national insurance means tax hikes for pensioners, even higher borrowing, cuts to important public services, or all of the above.

[Richard Fuller]

I hate reading and I probably will not be able to read this out either, because my eyes are not good. The shadow Minister talked about what the Chancellor said at the end of the Budget, so let me tell him that he said the following about any further cut:

“When it is responsible, when it can be achieved without increasing borrowing and when it can be delivered without compromising high-quality public services”. —[Official Report, 6 March 2024; Vol. 746, c. 851-52.]

So what problem does the shadow Minister have with cutting taxes on working people?

[James Murray]

The problem we have with the Chancellor’s announcement is that he has said that in the next Parliament he wants to abolish NI contributions. [Interruption.] The Prime Minister said that on the Saturday following the Budget. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have again and again, in emails to party members and in interviews with media outlets, made it clear that that is what they want to do. I appreciate that some Treasury Ministers have been flip-flopping a bit when they have been out on their media rounds and have not entirely been able to toe the party line. But going into the general election, I would listen to what the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are saying, and if they are saying that they want to abolish NI and create a £46 billion black hole in the public finances, they should stand up here and defend that to the people of Great Britain today.

The reckless way in which the Conservatives announced their unfunded tax plan and then refused to give any more details exposes the risk of five more years of them in power. It is clear the Conservatives will happily gamble with the public finances and yet again leave working people being forced to pay the price. As they have been unwilling to explain how their plan will be funded, we will today vote to force the Government to come clean on the impact of their £46 billion tax plan on the state of public finances.

Finance Bill

Debate between James Murray and Richard Fuller

Report stage
Monday 5th February 2024 Commons Chamber

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

In speaking to new clause 6, which relates to permanent full expensing, I remind the House of the context in which this Finance Bill was published. It followed the Chancellor’s statement on 22 November last year, in which he claimed that he was delivering an “autumn statement for growth”. Members will remember, however, that the same day, the Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed that growth forecasts had been cut by more than half for the coming year, cut again for the year after that, and cut yet again for the year after that. Independent analysts confirmed that even after all the changes that the Government had announced, personal taxes would still rise. They are set to rise by £1,200 per household by 2028-29, with the tax burden on track to be the highest since the second world war.

That was the context in which this Bill was published: flatlining wages, higher taxes, higher mortgage payments and worsening public services—all the product of 14 years of Conservative economic failure. Our country needs change. A critical part of making that change will be to get our country’s growth rate up. We need a plan for growth, to make people across Britain better off, and to ensure sustainable funding for our public services. Labour has been developing our plan for growth by working hand in hand with businesses across the country and across the economy.

We know how highly businesses that are considering investing in the UK rate stability, predictability and a long-term plan. For that reason, we welcome the fact that, as our new clause 6 highlights, the Bill makes full expensing permanent. Permanent full expensing is something we have long called for, as a policy that can support greater business investment and economic growth. Because Labour knows how important stability and predictability are to businesses, the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), announced last week that Labour is committed to maintaining permanent full expensing in the UK tax system, as well as the annual investment allowance, if we win the next general election. The shadow Chancellor has made this commitment to offer businesses certainty for the years ahead. Businesses considering plant and machinery investment across Britain can be confident that the tax treatment of that investment would not change with a Labour Government.

Of course, there is still a general election to face, so I use this opportunity to invite the Minister to put on the record whether the Conservatives will follow our lead by confirming that should they win the general election, they will maintain permanent full expensing. I am sure many businesses would welcome the certainty that would come from knowing both the main parties are going into the election fully committed to keeping permanent full expensing. I urge the Minister, when he responds, to confirm whether that will be his party’s policy going into the general election.

After all the chopping and changing we have seen in capital allowances in recent years, the Minister needs to make the commitment explicit. As I mentioned during earlier stages of the Bill, the annual investment allowance had been temporarily raised to £1 million when this Parliament began; that temporary basis was extended by the Finance Act 2021, again by the Finance Act 2022, and then made permanent by the Finance (No. 2) Act 2023. Meanwhile, over the course of this Parliament, the super-deduction came and went. Last year, full expensing for expenditure on plant and machinery was introduced on a temporary basis for three years. In this Bill, the Government are finally making it permanent. After so much instability, a commitment from Treasury Ministers at the Dispatch Box that the Conservatives, like Labour, will commit to maintaining permanent full expensing feels like the least they can do.

Our new clause 6 would require the Chancellor to publish not only an assessment of the impact of permanent full expensing, but a consideration of what other policies would support its effectiveness. We believe this is important to ensure that business investment is supported as much as possible. The Opposition have begun to set out what some of our policies would be if we won the next general election. As the shadow Chancellor has set out, if we were in government, we would consider the outcome of technical consultations on whether leased assets can be included in full expensing and on simplifying the UK’s capital allowance regime. I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on the progress of those consultations.

Last week, the shadow Chancellor also made clear the commitment that if Labour wins the next general election, we will ask HMRC to produce simple and comprehensive guidance making clear which assets are eligible for each type of capital allowance. That guidance would give businesses clarity over how their investments will be treated, and businesses will be able to use it as a single point of reference when making investment decisions. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government have considered taking such steps, or making such a commitment?

To give further certainty, the Shadow Chancellor has also said that in government, Labour would explore the greater use of rulings and clearances. Under such an approach, businesses would be able to get a written ruling from HMRC about the tax treatment of potential investments, making clear, for instance, whether they qualify for full expensing or other capital allowances. We know that businesses benefit from other countries’ tax administrators being able to provide such rulings and clearances. As certainty is crucial to encourage investment in Britain, I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed whether the Treasury has asked HMRC to consider the greater use of rulings and clearances for investment, and, if so, what its conclusion has been.

Of course, any policies on expensing or other capital allowances sit under the headline rate of corporation tax. It is hard to conclude anything other than that the Conservative party is rather unclear and confused about its approach to corporation tax rates in the UK. For evidence of that, we need look no further than the current Chancellor: in July 2022, during his leadership bid, he pledged to cut the headline rate of corporation tax from 19% to 15%, yet when he became Chancellor just three months later, one of his first acts was to promise to raise the tax instead from 19% to 25%. It is no wonder that businesses, and indeed Conservative Back Benchers, find it so hard to understand the Conservatives’ policy on corporation tax rates.

Let me be clear about the certainty we would offer if we won the next general election. As the shadow Chancellor has set out, we believe the current rate of 25% strikes the right balance between what our public finances need and, as the lowest rate in the G7, keeping our corporation tax competitive in the global economy. That is why we are pledging to cap the headline rate of corporation tax at its current rate of 25% for the whole of the next Parliament. We would take action if tax changes in other advanced economies threaten to undermine UK competitiveness. That choice provides predictability and has a clear rationale. That is the pro-business choice and the pro-growth choice. The promise to cap corporation tax at 25% is clear from us. Again, to offer businesses as much certainty as possible, will the Conservatives follow our lead and also pledge, today, to cap corporation tax at 25% for the next Parliament?

These commitments—to cap corporation tax, to maintain permanent full expensing and to keep the annual investment allowance—will all form part of the road map that we would publish in the first six months of a Labour Government, setting out our tax plans for businesses for the whole of that Parliament. That would put stability, predictability and a long-term plan at the heart of our approach. To give businesses as much certainty as possible, I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed whether a corporation tax cap at 25% and keeping full expensing in place will be in the Conservative party manifesto too.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I was interested in what the shadow Minister was saying about what would happen if other countries changed their corporation tax. As he will know, Mr Trump, the former President, has said that he would cut US corporation tax, potentially from 21% to 15%. Given such examples, does the hon. Gentleman anticipate that a Labour Government would look to cut the headline rate of corporation tax, as we would be looking at a significant tax cut by the world’s largest economy?

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As we have made clear, we would take action if tax changes in other advanced economies threatened to undermine UK competitiveness, but the headline commitment from us is to cap corporation tax at 25% for the duration of the next Parliament. I recall that in earlier consideration in this debate, he and I had an exchange about permanent full expensing, so I hope he will welcome our commitment to maintaining permanent full expensing if we are in government. Perhaps he will put pressure on his Front-Bench colleagues to join us today in making that a cross-party commitment from the House.

New clause 7 focuses on the multipliers used to calculate higher rates of air passenger duty. As we have discussed at earlier stages of the consideration of this Bill, clause 24 makes no changes to band A rates, while in band B, the reduced, standard and higher rates will increase by £1, £3 and £7 respectively. In band C, the reduced, standard and higher rates will rise by £1, £2 and £6 respectively. In each of those three bands, which cover international travel to a range of destinations, a simple principle is followed: if the duty for passengers on economy flights goes up, the duty for those flying business class and by private jet goes up too. In the domestic band, however, which covers flights within the UK, that simple principle of fairness does not apply. Instead, under the Bill, for domestic UK flights, the reduced rate of APD rises by 50p and the standard rate rises by £1, yet the higher rate is unchanged. Let me be clear what this means in plain English: from 1 April, passengers flying economy and business class within the UK will see their taxes rise, whereas passengers taking exactly the same flights by private jet will enjoy a tax freeze. Although the changes kick in on 1 April, this is no April fools’ day joke, although the Prime Minister may be laughing; it is the result of a hidden loophole that that the Conservatives have introduced. We discussed this matter in Committee, when the Exchequer Secretary tried to provide an explanation for this unfairness. He said that APD rates are

“uprated by a forecast of RPI and those rates are then rounded to the nearest pound.”

As for the different rates I highlighted in Committee, he said:

“It largely depends on how they”—

the rates—

are rounded to the nearest pound; the actual rate is determined by whether the figure is rounded down or up.”––[Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 16 January 2024; c. 34-35.]

I know that the Exchequer Secretary always tries to give me a straight answer—let me put it on the record that I genuinely appreciate his efforts to do so—but I fear that his explanation in Committee may have been unintentionally misleading or, at the very least, only partial. Since that Committee stage, the House of Commons Library has given me information confirming that it does not tell the full picture to say that the duty rates are, as the Minister claimed,

“uprated by a forecast of RPI and those rates are then rounded to the nearest pound.”––[Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 16 January 2024; c. 34.]

In fact, my understanding is that the Minister’s statement applied only to the reduced rates of air passenger duty. Those are indeed adjusted each year in line with forecast RPI and rounded to the nearest pound. However, the standard and higher rates are not calculated by separate reference to RPI; rather, they are generally set as multipliers of their respective reduced rates. For instance, the standard and higher rates in band B are set as 2.2 and 6.6 times the band B reduced rate respectively, rounded in both cases to the nearest pound.

Finance Bill

Debate between James Murray and Richard Fuller

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 10th January 2024 Commons Chamber

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

Let me start by briefly considering the context in which we are debating clauses 1 and 2. As we know, the Bill follows the Chancellor’s statement on 22 November last year, in which he claimed that he was delivering an “autumn statement for growth”. As the Committee may remember, the Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed on the same day that growth forecasts had been cut by more than half for the coming year, cut again for the year after that, and cut yet again for the year after that. Independent analysts confirmed that, even after all the changes the Government had announced, personal taxes would still rise. In fact, personal taxes are now set to rise by £1,200 per household by 2028-29, with the tax burden on track to be the highest since the second world war. Despite people across the country paying so much in tax, public services are collapsing, the NHS is on its knees, and more and more families are struggling to make ends meet.

That was the context in which we considered the Bill on Second Reading just before Christmas: 13 years of Conservative economic failure had left people across Britain worse off. The only thing to have changed since then is that we now face 14 years of Conservative economic failure. It may be a new year, but those in the governing party face the same cold truth: nothing they can say or do now can repair the damage that they have done to our economy.

People in businesses across Britain deserve so much better. As a foundation of better management of the economy, our country needs and deserves stability, certainty and a long-term plan. It is for that reason that, although we welcome the fact that clause 1 makes full expensing permanent, which we have long called for, it simply cannot make up for the years of uncertainty that businesses have faced. Businesses need stability and predictability to help them plan for growth, and their long-term planning has been held back because the Government have been chopping and changing business taxes and reliefs year after year, with no evidence of anything resembling a long-term strategy.

[Richard Fuller]

I was very pleased to hear the shadow Minister say that the Opposition welcome the full expensing. That helps, but maybe he can go further to clarify. In new clause 6, tabled in his name, the Opposition are calling for a review of all business taxes and reliefs, which would include full expensing. He will know, as will the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Alistair Strathern) who is sitting behind him, that there is a particular potential investment decision in our county. Will the shadow Minister make it explicit that the Labour party’s intention is to include in its manifesto for the next election a commitment to maintaining full expensing?

[James Murray]

As I have said, we have long been calling for full expensing, and we welcome the fact that it is being made permanent. I do not mean to sound jokey in my response—I am deadly serious when I say this—but if the hon. Gentleman wants to know what a Labour Government would do if we got into office, there is one way to see that eventuality come about: we could have a general election sooner rather than later, instead of dragging things on throughout the course of 2024.

Frankly, the country needs to move on from the current Government. Just look at their record on capital allowances since the last general election. The hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) spoke about certainty and the need for stability, but let us look at the changes that have happened to capital allowances over the past four or five years. As I mentioned on Second Reading, back at the beginning of this Parliament, the annual investment had been raised to £1 million on a temporary basis. That temporary basis was extended by the Finance Act 2021, extended again by the Finance Act 2022, and then made permanent by the Finance (No. 2) Act 2023. Meanwhile, over the course of this Parliament, the super-deduction came and went entirely. Last year, full expensing for expenditure on plant or machinery was introduced but only on a temporary basis for three years.

Now, of course, Treasury Ministers are amending what their predecessors announced last year by making full expensing permanent. Although we welcome that policy, I wonder how long it will last. Frankly, I wonder how long any policy can be expected to last under this Government, when they are led—in the loosest possible sense of that word—by such a weak Prime Minister. If we accept clause 1 at face value, we welcome its principle of making full expensing permanent, as that is something that we have long called for. I will focus the rest of my questions on some of the specifics of the Government’s approach.

As ever, I am grateful to the excellent team at the Chartered Institute of Taxation for all their thoughts on the detail of what the Government have proposed in this clause and others. I know that one matter of interest to the chartered institute was the fact that, at the autumn statement, the Government said that they would publish a technical consultation on leased assets. I would be grateful if the Minister told us when that will be published.

Furthermore, both the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Association of Taxation Technicians—to which I am also grateful for its thoughts on the detail of the Bill—have queried which companies and assets are eligible for full expensing. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified which assets are outside the scope of full expensing, and whether the Treasury will publish a detailed list of what does and does not count as plant and machinery. I would also be grateful if he told us how many firms will not be eligible for full expensing because they are partnerships. I know that many who take an interest in this matter would welcome clarity on that.

In clause 2, the Government propose changes to the system of tax credits for research and development. As with their approach to business taxation and capital allowances, the Government have failed to deliver any sense of stability when it comes to R&D tax credits, despite certainty and predictability being so crucial to businesses that are making investment decisions. That much is clear when looking at the list of changes that we have debated in Finance Bills over the course of the current Parliament alone: the Finance Act 2020 changed the rate of R&D expenditure credit; the Finance Act 2021 changed how much R&D tax relief small and medium-sized enterprises could claim; the Finance Act 2023 again changed the rates of R&D tax relief; the Finance (No. 2) Act 2023 changed further how the relief operates; and now, the Finance Bill before us changes the system of reliefs yet again. We accept, of course, that some change is necessary and important to enable legislation to function well, but that does not seem to be what we have seen. What we have seen is a Government incapable of providing stability, predictability, and the long-term plan that businesses need to invest and grow. It is clear that after 14 years in office, the Conservatives are incapable of providing that crucial foundation for our economic success.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between James Murray and Richard Fuller

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 18th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

The hon. Member is right to point that out that, in addition to the points that I have made, the Government’s decision has a climate change impact. It shows, I think, in the design of the windfall tax that investment allowances really should have no place in a proper windfall tax on oil and gas giants’ profits. We want to scrap those investment allowances and to make sure that that money is spent helping people through the cost of living crisis that we face right now. I would very much welcome the hon. Member and any Member on the Conservative Benches joining us in voting for new clause 6, which will force the Government to come clean about how much money they would raise by strengthening the windfall tax—money that could go towards freezing council tax this year.

I have spoken so far about the clauses of the Bill that relate to the main rates of corporation tax, capital allowances and reliefs. I now turn my attention to another important way that the Bill impacts on corporation tax through parts 3 and 4, which relate to the new multinational top-up tax and the related domestic top-up tax. As I set out earlier, we desperately need greater stability and certainty in business taxes and allowances to help the economy grow in the future. We also need greater fairness to help people with the cost of living crisis right now.

That principle of fairness is crucial in making sure that British businesses that pay their fair share of tax face a level playing field when competing with large multinationals that may not do so. That is why we have, for so long, pressed the Government to back an ambitious global minimum tax rate for large multinationals. We have long needed an international deal on a global minimum corporate tax rate to stop the international race to the bottom and to help raise revenue to support British public services. We welcome the international agreement, fostered by the OECD, that makes sure that large multinationals pay a minimum level of 15% tax in each jurisdiction in which they operate.

As I set out on Second Reading, it has been a long and winding path to get to this point. The Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor, was often lukewarm in his support of such an approach. However, the deal now faces a new front of challenges, as Conservative Back Benchers have begun to be open in their hostility towards the implementation of the deal, as we have seen in this place today. We believe that it is crucial to get this legislation in place, so I hope the Minister can reassure us today that those parts of the Bill that introduce a multinational top-up tax will not be bargained away in the face of opposition from Conservative Back Benchers.

On Second Reading, we heard from the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and others as they rallied their colleagues against the global minimum rate of tax for large multinationals. We therefore want to press the Government to make sure that, in the face of opposition from their Back Benchers, they do not back away from implementing this landmark deal.

That is why we have tabled new clause 1, which would require the Chancellor to report every three months for a year on the Government’s progress in supporting the implementation of OECD pillar two rules. The quarterly reports mandated by the new clause would update the House on the Government’s progress towards implementation. Those updates must include details of what efforts the Government have undertaken to make the rules as effective as possible. They must explain what the Government have done to encourage more countries to implement the pillar two rules—a point made by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), who is no longer in her place. This is important because we know that the rules will be more effective the more widely they are implemented. I hope that the Government will support our new clause, which commits them to giving these updates. Surely that is a matter on which we broadly agree. Even if Ministers do not support the new clause, I hope that many Conservative Back Benchers do.

On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Witham expressed her concern that the implementation of the OECD rules had so far progressed with “very limited scrutiny”.

Although I know that she and I, and others on the Conservative Benches, may have very different views on these rules and on what they will achieve, surely she and her fellow Back Benchers will not vote against transparency and will not try to block our new clause that simply requires updates to Parliament every three months.

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman is very kind to give way. Personally, I do not have much concern about transparency in the United Kingdom—we do a fantastic job in that regard. I also have no problem with this country implementing regulations. We tend to have a reputation for gold-plating all our regulations. My concern is that other countries will not do what they say they will do. By enacting this legislation, my concern is that other countries will not do so. The hon. Gentleman has been extolling the virtues of supporting British enterprise, but Labour’s approach runs the risk of putting British companies at a disadvantage, because the United States and other countries may not move forward as we introduce these restrictions. He has talked about transparency, but can he specifically say today that, if the United States does not enact this legislation, the Labour party, whether in Government or not, would support efforts for us to renew or review pressing ahead with our own legislation?

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. At one point, I thought he was starting to speak in favour of our new clause; I got my hopes up momentarily because he referred to the importance of making sure that more countries implement the pillar two rules, and we agree that that is important to make them as effective as possible. Indeed, new clause 1 says that the statements to the House, every three months of the following year, must include details of efforts by the UK Government to encourage more countries to implement the pillar two rules. On that basis, I hope that he will join us in the Lobby to vote for the new clause later this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

rose—

[James Murray]

I am going to make some progress.

Finally, our new clause 2 would require the Government to set out their approach to pillar one of the OECD agreement and the digital services tax. We know that, unlike pillar two, the implementation of which is proceeding both here in the UK and in many countries overseas, the prospects of pillar one being implemented in the near future look less positive. That is likely to have an impact on the Government’s approach to the digital services tax, so I urge the Government to support our new clause, which requires the Chancellor to make a statement to the House on the matter. While new clause 2 has not been selected today, I none the less encourage the Minister to set out the Government’s approach to pillar one and the digital services tax in her closing remarks.

Through today’s debate on the Bill’s clauses and our amendments, we have seen the state that the Government are in. We have seen how they are failing to provide our economy with the stability and certainty that is needed for growth—growth that we need in every part of the country to make everyone, rather than just a few, better off. We have seen how the Government’s Back Benchers risk putting their party before our country at every turn, and how they are unable to provide the long-term plan that people and businesses need. We have seen clearly how this Government are refusing to take fair decisions on taxes—putting up council tax for families across the country, rather than strengthening the windfall tax on oil and gas giants.

When we come to vote at the end of this debate, I urge all hon. Members to support Labour’s new clauses and expose the unfair choices that this Prime Minister and this Conservative Government are making, which are leaving our economy on a path of managed decline.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between James Murray and Richard Fuller

2nd reading
Wednesday 29th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

As we have said several times, we will set out our plans in our own time. But let us be clear, if the hon. Member has concerns over capital gains tax, he might want to talk to those on his own Front Bench, because they raised it in the last Finance Bill by cutting the annual exempt amount. I suggest he talks to his colleagues before he raises questions with us.

[Richard Fuller]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Member is a very thoughtful man. I think one of the reasons that he might be hearing some questions from Conservative Back Benchers is that he has just positioned himself as the advocate for the policy that our Front Benchers are now implementing. I have a question of substance for him on his research. He has just mentioned the original position of 21%, and has been clear in saying that what business wants is clarity, so can he give us some clarity? Is it the intention, if there is a future Labour Government, that they will press OECD countries for an increase in that 15% to achieve the 21% that he has been advocating?

[James Murray]

It is always nice to have an intervention from the hon. Gentleman. We very much miss his being in his position on the Government Front Bench. The debate over the OECD agreement has been going on for several years. President Biden wanted 21%, but there was lukewarm support for that from this Government and we ended up with 15%. Our challenge now, frankly, is to make sure that the likes of the hon. Gentleman do not get in the way of its implementation, because we want to see this global deal in place and Britain playing its part.

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention was timely as a reminder of the opposition coming from Conservative Back Benchers. In fact, this is an issue that I have raised with the Treasury Minister before. She might remember that on 7 February I asked her if the Government would keep their promise to implement the multinational top-up tax in the UK this year. We wanted reassurance that the Prime Minister’s weakness in the face of his Back Benchers would not leave us missing out on this landmark global deal. The Minister might recall that she brushed aside concerns that her Back Benchers might oppose these plans, only for concerns to be raised moments later by the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel). The former Home Secretary, who was here earlier, went on to write a piece in The Daily Telegraph on 24 February arguing against the Government’s approach. In that piece, she claimed:

“In the House of Commons, those now turning their attention to all this are beginning to bridle.”

We believe it is crucial to get this legislation in place, so I hope the Minister can reassure us today that those parts of the Bill that introduce a multinational top-up tax will not be bargained away in the face of opposition from Conservative Back Benchers.

A fairer and more certain tax system, underpinned by a long-term economic plan, is crucial to helping businesses invest and grow, but an ambitious plan for growing our economy must go much further, and we have made it clear that this would be Labour’s first mission in government. At the heart of our plan to grow the economy, to create jobs and wealth, and to make everyone in our country better off is the partnership we would build between Government and business. We understand, as do businesses, that growth comes from the Government supporting private enterprises to succeed in the industries of the economy of the future.

That is why our green prosperity plan is so important, as it would provide catalytic public investment to crowd in private sector investment and to grow our clean energy capacity and green industries across the country. We would support growth in the digital economy and the life sciences, we would update our planning system to remove barriers to investment, and we would improve access to capital for new and growing businesses. We would make sure that, under Labour, the Government and business work together and invest together, for the good of everyone in every region and nation of the UK.

This task is urgent, because the world economy is changing and other countries are pulling ahead. According to the CBI, we are investing five times less than Germany, and roughly half of France and the US, in green industries. The Institute of Directors has said that, on its present path

“the UK will find itself left behind in the accelerating race to lead the green economy.”

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said, following the Budget:

“There is little…that enables the UK to compete with the massive packages of support to power a green transition that are available elsewhere.”

From President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act in the US to the programmes coming out of Europe, Asia and Australia, the rest of the world is chasing the opportunities of the future. We need to be in that race too. Once we are, the opportunities will be ours for the taking. Our British businesses already excel in so many sectors and, with the right support, we could be a world leader in the new and growing industries of the future, making full use of our geography, our advantage in high-tech sectors and our world-leading universities.

What British businesses and families need now is a credible, ambitious plan from the Government to grow the economy and to make everyone in every part of our country better off. The failure to do that is perhaps the greatest failure of this Finance Bill and this month’s Budget. The Conservatives have had 13 years, and they have failed. As long as they stay in power, the vicious cycle of stagnation stays too. It is time for a new Government who will get us off this path of managed decline and make sure that people and businesses in Britain succeed.

Finance Bill

Debate between James Murray and Richard Fuller

2nd reading
Monday 28th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller]

Will the hon. Gentleman please check his facts? If he looks at the period from 2010 to just before the covid pandemic and compares the UK’s average rate of growth with that of our OECD competitors, particularly the G7, he will find that the UK outstrips all of them bar the United States and Germany.

[James Murray]

I seem to be engaging more with the hon. Gentleman now that he is on the Back Benches than when he was briefly on the Front Bench. If he looks at the statistics, he will see that, over the last 12 years, the UK’s growth rate has been a third lower than the OECD average, and a third lower than it was during the previous Labour years. I will take no lessons from him or his colleagues on the need for economic growth.

I take this opportunity to give the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), some rare credit. At least he took responsibility for the mess he inherited from his colleagues when he confirmed that our economy is stuck in a “vicious cycle of stagnation.” On that point, he was absolutely right.

Over the Conservatives’ 12 years in power, as I said to the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), the UK economy grew a third less than the OECD average and a third less than during the previous Labour years. What is more, we are now the only G7 economy that is still smaller than before the pandemic. Over the next two years, we are forecast to have the highest inflation in the G7 and the worst economic growth of any country in the G20 except Russia.

What is more, we are the only country in the G7 whose governing party chose to inflict profound damage on its own economy. Although the Prime Minister and the Chancellor refuse to take responsibility, the British people can see through them and will hold them to account. What the British people want and need is a Government who will get on and do the right thing without having to be pushed, dragged and forced into doing so. That is one reason why people across the country have been so exasperated by the Government’s reluctance at every turn to implement a windfall tax on oil and gas producers’ huge profits this year.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) first called on the Government to bring in a windfall tax in January. It took five months of pushing the Government along a painful journey to get them to act. In those months, Conservative Ministers tried to defend their position, saying that oil and gas producers were struggling. They said a windfall tax would be “un-Conservative”, and the current Prime Minister said it would be “silly” to use this money to offer people help with their energy bills. Conservative MPs voted against a windfall tax three times, and then, when they finally realised their position was untenable, they did a U-turn.

Even then, having been dragged kicking and screaming into introducing a windfall tax, the current Prime Minister coupled it with a massive tax break for the oil and gas giants. This tax break will be given to the oil and gas giants for doing the things they were going to do anyway, which helps to explain why some of them have paid zero windfall tax in the UK this year, despite record global profits.

Despite having another go at windfall tax legislation with this Bill, the massive tax break is still there. It is set at a level that will, to quote the explanatory notes,

“maintain the overall cumulative value of relief”.

This tax break leaves billions of pounds on the table. These profits—the windfalls of war—could go towards helping people facing the difficult months ahead. This tax break is set to cost the taxpayer £80 billion over five years. This tax break was brought in by decisions that this Prime Minister took when he was Chancellor, and it is staying thanks to the decisions of the Chancellor he appointed from No. 10. What clearer evidence could there be that, no matter which Conservative goes through the revolving door of Downing Street, it is all more of the same?

All we get from the Conservatives is the same vicious cycle of stagnation. This doom loop has been dragging wages down, forcing taxes up and hitting public services, all of which come round again and keep economic growth low.

UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between James Murray and Richard Fuller

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with you as Chair today, Mr Davies. As we know, clause 2 concerns the objectives and activities of the UK Infrastructure Bank. Subsection (5) seeks to define the infrastructure and makes reference to the

“structures underpinning the circular economy, and nature-based solutions”,

which reflects an amendment made in the Lords that Government amendment 1 seeks to remove. The Government’s opposition to this measure seems to run counter to subsection (3)(a), which defines tackling climate change as an objective of the bank. I note that the Government do not oppose this objective of the bank, but they do seem to reject its delivery. We naturally oppose the amendment, which highlights how the Government seem to be all talk but unwilling to follow through on solutions to the climate emergency.

The truth is that the Government and the newly appointed Prime Minister have a record of failure on investing in green infrastructure for our country and our economy. While we welcome the bank’s focus on tackling climate change, no matter how well it plays its part, the British people need a Government with an effective plan to make the investments in the jobs, homes and energy supplies of the future a reality.

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman may point to conflict between taking out from subsection (5) the words

“structures underpinning the circular economy, and nature-based solutions”,

and the objective in subsection (3) about tackling climate change, but if he looks at subsection (5)(c), he will see that

“climate change (including the removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere)”

is retained. The amendment does not affect the Government’s commitments on climate change at all.

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention—it is a pleasure to speak with him once again following his brief tenure on the Government Front Bench. I am not quite sure from that intervention whether he supports our opposition to Government amendment 1. Perhaps we will see when we push it to a vote shortly.

Let me move on to Government amendment 2. It seeks to remove from the clause subsection (6), which was introduced by Labour in the Lords. Subsection (6) requires the bank to have regard to public interest when targeting investment that improves productivity, pay, jobs and living standards and reduces the economic disparities between the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. Sadly, it comes as no surprise to us that the Government wish to remove commitments to better pay and the reduction of economic disparities. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead already set out clearly the importance of prioritising job creation and putting it in the Bill. We want all parts of the country to benefit from investment in green jobs for the future, along with improved rail and other transport services and other essential modern infrastructure, including broadband.

When it comes to supporting economic growth across the country—or levelling up, as the Government used to call it—words ring hollow unless people see change. That is why clause 2(6) is so important, as it seeks to ensure that the bank has regard to the first mission of the Government’s levelling-up White Paper when exercising its functions under the Bill. We oppose the amendment because we seek to hold the Government to account on their commitment to level up our country.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I beg to move amendment 20, clause 7, page 3, line 23, at end insert—

“(ba) at any time, the Bank is to have at least one non-executive director who is a representative of workers.”

This amendment ensures there is a workers’ representative on the board of the Bank.

As I mentioned earlier, Labour is concerned about the absence of a workers’ representative on the board of the bank, especially as much of the board consists of political appointees at the behest of the Chancellor.

We are committed to a strong partnership between industry, workers and the state. Having a workers’ representative on the board of the bank is important for good governance. The UK’s corporate governance code states that a company should have a combination of a director appointed from the workforce, a formal workforce advisory panel, or a designated non-executive director to facilitate engagement with the workforce. It also states, however, that if the board has not chosen one or more of those methods, it should explain what alternative arrangements are in place and why. In the absence of such an explanation, we have tabled amendment 20, which was originally moved in the Lords. We recognise arguments made in the Lords about how the Government’s framework document, to be published after Royal Assent, provides safeguards and protective measures, however that document is not legally binding. Sufficient questions have also already been raised about the activity of the bank to require explicit assurances in the Bill.

[Richard Fuller]

Could the hon. Gentleman clarify to whom the clause refers when it talks about workers? Is he referring to workers of the infrastructure bank, and is he calling for a board representative of them, because most of those people will be bankers? I am not so sure that Labour has always felt that the bankers are the most in need of representation in financial institutions. Or is he referring to workers of the investee company? If so, how would that be facilitated?

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks.

As I set out, the UK corporate governance code already has clear guidelines about the involvement of workforce in governance of boards. However, we have not had explicit assurances from the Government. We have tabled the amendment to push the Government on that. We need assurances that investments and loans made by the bank will be guided by the economic needs of the entire country. Investments made into tax havens pose a real risk to achieving that goal. Marcus Johns from the think-tank IPPR North has said that the use of tax havens

“hollows out our economy, keeps wages low, holds communities back, and enables money to be syphoned away into a globalised system of extraction”.

He argued that the bank

“must look seriously to prevent the use of tax havens and avoidance among the firms it supports.”

As the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), said, a Labour Government would support

“British industry, supply chains & support industrial strategy”,

and ensure that trade unions

“have access to workplaces”

and that all

“businesses & bodies receiving public money from the UK Infrastructure Bank…have a plan to create good jobs with decent conditions”.

We believe that only with a workers’ representative on the board will the bank have that critical perspective on job creation and succeed in being governed with the entirety of the UK’s economic prosperity in mind.

UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [Lords]

Debate between James Murray and Richard Fuller

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st November 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I will set out the views of the Opposition. We will not oppose the Bill today, as it seeks to put the UK Infrastructure Bank, which has been operating on an interim basis since June 2021, as we heard, on a statutory footing. We support the establishment and strengthening of the bank, and we want the new institution to play its part in tackling climate change and supporting regional and local economic growth.

The need for economic growth is central to the challenges our country is facing today, and it comes after 12 years of low growth under the Conservatives. During the last Labour Government, despite the global financial crisis, the economy grew by 2.1% a year. Since 2010, however, the Tories have grown the economy by just 1.5% a year. The outlook under the Tories now is even worse, with growth forecast to be the worst in the G7 over the next two years. As the previous Chancellor recently admitted, under the Conservatives we have been stuck in a “vicious cycle of stagnation”.

That stagnation in our economy has seen real wages fall and the tax burden rise for working people in this country. Even before the disastrous mini-Budget, working people were paying the price for the Conservatives’ record of failure on the economy. What the then Chancellor announced on 23 September poured petrol on the fire, as Ministers unleashed a discredited and reckless economic approach on the British public. Trickle-down economics, unfunded tax cuts and an ideological slashing of protections for workers and the environment—no wonder the former Prime Minister and Chancellor were removed from office so quickly, and no wonder the current Chancellor has had to U-turn on almost every measure. The truth is that this economic crisis was created in Downing Street. The damage has been done, and working people will be paying the price for years to come.

Part of the reason for the Conservatives’ failure to grow the economy as it could have been growing over the last decade has been their failure to invest in the infrastructure our country needs. As we look ahead to the coming decade, investment in our country’s response to the climate emergency could not be more critical, both to protect the environment and to grow the economy.

That is why Labour’s green prosperity plan is so important. Under our plan, we would invest in wind, solar and nuclear power to make our electricity system zero-carbon by 2030, we would insulate 19 million homes across the country, bringing down carbon emissions and people’s home energy bills, and we would invest in new jobs in industries of the future, from electric vehicles to clean steel.

We recognise that the UK Infrastructure Bank can play an important role in supporting essential investment. We therefore welcome the fact that one of its objectives, set out in clause 2 of the Bill, is to help tackle climate change. But setting up the bank is not enough on its own; we need a Government who will drive forward the agenda of green investment that we need. Sadly, the Government’s record makes it clear that they will fail to rise to that challenge.

There is evidence of that failure littered throughout the past 12 years. Ten years ago, the Government set up the Green Investment Bank. Five years later, they sold it off to a private equity group. The Public Accounts Committee said that the bank had

“failed to live up to original ambitions”.

The Committee was clear that, in selling it off, the Government had been focused on

“how much money could be gained from the sale over the continued delivery of GIB’s green objective.”

Supporters of the current Prime Minister on the Conservative Benches may remember that, two years ago, the then Chancellor published a video on his YouTube channel titled: “Rishi Explains: Green Home Grants”. In that video, the now Prime Minister excitedly announced that the brand-new green homes grant scheme was open for applications. However, I was not able to find any videos of him explaining why the green homes grant scheme closed six months later and saw £1 billion cut from its budget. Although he seems to have forgotten to make a video explaining that, the Environmental Audit Committee was happy to set out its views. In its report, “Energy Efficiency of Existing Homes,” it concluded that the scheme had been

“rushed in conception and poorly implemented”

and described its administration as “nothing short of disastrous”.

[Richard Fuller]

The Opposition spokesman talks about the importance of sticking with plans and of permanence. That is quite right; this is infrastructure, which lasts a long time. Will he therefore use this opportunity on the Floor of the House to give the assurance that, should Labour form a Government in the near future, it will make no changes to the objectives listed in the Bill?

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between James Murray and Richard Fuller

Committee stage & Committee of the Whole House (Day 1)
Monday 19th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, but as I have set out, the annual investment allowance already appears to serve small and medium-sized enterprises well. The super deduction that we are debating now is designed to help companies such as Amazon, which do not need any help with their investment. It is important that we see this in the context of those companies that have done well throughout the outbreak and are already avoiding much of the tax they should be paying. It is no wonder that Tax Watch has nicknamed this the “Amazon Tax Cut”. This giveaway from the Chancellor could wipe out Amazon’s UK tax bill entirely.

Analysis of Amazon’s accounts from 2019 shows that the corporation’s UK operations made pre-tax profits of £102 million. In the same year, it spent £67 million on plant and machinery, £80 million on office equipment, and £15 million on computer equipment. The super deduction would have enabled Amazon to deduct £211 million from the calculation of its taxable profits— more than enough to wipe out its entire tax liability twice over. It is truly astonishing that, faced with all the challenges of this outbreak, the Government see their priority as giving Amazon a tax break.

Here and around the world, people agree with us that investment in jobs and growth is what is needed. A tax break for tech giants that already fail to pay what they should is not the answer. That is why our amendment 79 would explicitly prevent the biggest tech firms from taking advantage of the Chancellor’s tax break, as well as other big firms that do not support workers’ rights and the living wage.

The Government should be improving the lives of Amazon workers, who have helped so many people with deliveries throughout the pandemic, not giving a huge tax break to their bosses. Amendment 79 would prevent Amazon and other tech giants from accessing the super deduction by preventing firms from doing so if they are liable for the digital services tax. When the Government set out their plans for the digital services tax, they made it clear that it would apply to businesses that provide social media platforms, search engines, or online marketplaces to UK users. The detail of that tax means that businesses will be liable when the group’s worldwide revenues from these digital activities are more than £500 million, and when more than £25 million of these revenues are derived from UK users.

We are clear that those big corporations that should be caught by the digital services tax are among those that absolutely should not be benefiting from the Government proclaim as the biggest business tax cut in modern British history. We know that Amazon has brazenly made it clear that it will dodge the bill from the digital services tax by passing the cost on to its marketplace sellers. The fact that it is not even paying the tax that was designed for it to pay makes the prospect of a further massive tax cut from the Chancellor even more galling.

Furthermore, as well as excluding big corporations on the basis of their being liable for the digital services tax, we are seeking to use our amendment to stop those big businesses that do not support workers’ rights and the living wage from accessing the tax break. Both conditions would also catch Amazon and would also require other big businesses—those that are not liable for the digital services tax—to respect the right to organise and collective bargaining, and to be certified, or be in the process of being certified, by the Living Wage Foundation as a living wage employer.

When firms stand to benefit from what the Chancellor has called the biggest business tax cut in modern British history, the very least the Government should require of them is that they pay their workers the living wage and respect workers’ basic rights to organise. Alongside this, we propose in amendment 80 that the Government require big firms benefiting from the Chancellor’s tax break to make a climate-related financial disclosure, in line with the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures.

Beyond the specific issue of how the biggest corporations are set to benefit from this tax break the most, we have also tabled new clause 24 to reflect the widely-held concerns about the impact of the super deduction on levels of tax avoidance and evasion. As the chief executive of the Resolution Foundation has made clear, investment incentives have been abused for tax avoidance purposes in the past, yet the Government have failed to say or do anything to address widespread concerns that the super deduction is open to fraud and abuse.

As I mentioned on Second Reading, economists from the Institute for Fiscal Studies have said that the super deduction will

“create a risk of tax avoidance and even potentially fraud as companies essentially try to find ways to dress things up as plant and machinery investment”.

Minsters were unable to reassure us on this point when I raised it last week, so we are asking for the levels of tax avoidance and evasion arising from the super deduction to be reviewed and put transparently before this House.

It tells us everything about the Conservatives’ priorities that they are taking money from people’s pockets at the very same time as letting tech giants off paying tax altogether. This Government are proposing to wipe out some of the biggest corporations’ tax bills through a £25 billion boon, aimed at the biggest corporations, that the Chancellor has called

“the biggest two-year business tax cut in modern British history.”

In the face of a struggling economy, a tax break for tech giants that already do not pay enough tax should be the last thing on the Government’s mind. Instead, it is top of their list. They are wrong.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Murray]

No, let me make some progress.

The Government are wrong, and that is why we will be voting to stop the Chancellor’s tax break going to the biggest tech firms or other big corporations that do not support workers’ rights and the living wage. We need a fairer tax system and we need investment in jobs and growth. This Government’s Finance Bill fails on both fronts. I urge Conservative Members to show that they understand this, support our amendments today and take a stand against the Amazon tax cut.