Finance Bill

Peter Grant Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 30th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Anthony Browne]

I am well aware of how fiscal drag works. I have been studying it, reporting on it and commenting on it for about 20 years. My point was that, as the amendment is worded, the person would have become liable to pay the base rate of income tax when they were not previously so liable. If they are not liable now, they will not become liable as a result of this Bill. The hon. Lady could have changed the wording of the amendment—she would need to go to lawyers to work out the wording—but, as it stands, literally no one falls into that category. The one category in which people could end up in higher tax bands as a result of the Bill is not actually mentioned, which is the lowering of the threshold for the additional rate of tax from £150,000 a year to £125,000 a year. So for example, if a person was earning £130,000 a year, they would not be liable for the additional rate of income tax—the 45p rate—now, but they will be as a result of the Bill. However, the hon. Lady’s amendment does not mention that; it mentions the standard rate and the lower rate, for which the thresholds are kept stable.

New clause 8 has not been selected, but the hon. Members for Ealing North (James Murray) and for Gordon (Richard Thomson) both talked about non-doms. I just point out that there is a lot about non-doms that I would tidy up. It is clearly not a perfect system, and I do not think that anybody would defend it. None the less, it was there throughout the time of the last Labour Government. They did many reviews on it—I remember those reviews—and they sort of tinkered with it a little bit, but fundamentally left it the same. They agreed with the arguments currently put out by the Government that it is an overall net gain for the UK economy and for the UK taxpayer.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am wondering whether the teddy should be moved on to the Front Bench. It could become one of the most effective Members of the present Cabinet.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned his belief in tax transparency, which is clearly something that we would all welcome. In his autumn statement, the Chancellor made a great deal of the fact that it would mean that somebody working full time on a minimum wage would get a pay rise of about £1,900. He did not mention that the Treasury would then take back almost £500 of that because of the increased tax they would have to pay. Does he believe that it would have been more transparent for the Chancellor to admit how much additional tax somebody on a minimum wage would be paying as a result of there being no increase in the tax bands in this Finance Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government have missed a huge opportunity in limiting the windfall tax to oil and gas companies? They could have introduced a windfall tax on other companies that have, fortuitously, made massive profits as a result of the pandemic.

[Caroline Lucas]

I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman. If I had to make a suggestion about where the Government should look next, it would be the distribution network operators—the companies that run the grids. There has been no spotlight on them at all even though they are making massive profits right now.

The hole at the heart of the windfall tax has led Shell—the UK’s fourth largest oil and gas producer—to pay no windfall tax or, indeed, any normal oil and gas tax at all. Indeed, oil and gas companies, which have made frankly grotesque profits, will still be able to claim £91.40 in tax relief for every £100 invested in oil and gas infrastructure. What is more, from January 1 a company spending £100 on upstream decarbonisation—which essentially translates as reducing emissions from the process of extracting oil and gas that goes on to be burned—will now be eligible for £109 relief. In other words, the taxpayer is actually paying the oil companies, which are already raking in massive profits—not the other way around.

The Government plan to make real-terms cuts to Departments that have already been starved of funding. They talk about “sacrifices” and “difficult decisions”, as the Chancellor has. Charities warn of a humanitarian crisis, and new research published this weekend shows that almost 200,000 additional young families will be pushed into fuel poverty come April when the energy price guarantee rises to £3,000. In that context, how can the Government possibly justify a situation in which taxpayers are supporting oil and gas companies, whose profits have absolutely ballooned, to fulfil obligations that they can perfectly well afford to pay for themselves.

It is also worth comparing this tax with the one on low-carbon electricity generators, which will be subject to a windfall tax of 45% for revenues above £75 per MWh, yet will not be eligible for investment relief at all. That leads to a ludicrous situation whereby companies will get a bigger tax break for building a wind turbine to power an oil rig than for building one that generates power for the energy grid. I simply cannot see how that is defensible in any shape or form.

The autumn statement should have been the moment where the Chancellor launched a transformation of our economy, powered by abundant renewable energy and with good green jobs. Instead, we had continued support for a costly and slow nuclear white elephant, and for the fossil fuels choking our planet. The so-called investment allowance—it is better termed “obscene subsidy”—is, frankly, a disgrace that fails to tax oil and gas companies properly and comes at huge cost to the public purse. Indeed, it has been estimated that if Rosebank—the UKs largest undeveloped oilfield—is developed, its owners would effectively receive more than £500 million in taxpayer subsidies.

To put that figure into context, it would be enough to extend free school meals to every child whose family receives universal credit, to pay the annual salaries of more than 14,000 nurses, or to build one new medium-sized hospital. Choosing between genuinely improving our society or subsidising a climate-wrecking project—Rosebank, in this case, which would produce more emissions than 28 low-income countries combined—should not be a difficult choice.

Make no mistake, it is a subsidy—including, it would appear, according to the Government’s own definition in the Subsidy Control Act 2022. I am sure the Government will deny that, but perhaps they will be more inclined to take note of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which has stated that the investment allowance

“means that North Sea investment will be massively subsidised”,

through which loss-making investments could be rendered commercial.

Put simply, my new clause would require the Government to publish an assessment of the impact of the investment allowance on revenue raised by the windfall tax. The Government estimate that the oil and gas sector will pay around £80 billion in tax over the next six years, but it is essential that we have greater transparency on how much revenue will be forgone. That revenue could help to finance a real retrofit revolution to upgrade the UK’s leaky homes so that we get off gas for good.

Of course, I welcome the £6 billion investment in energy efficiency from 2025, but that will be of little comfort to households that are struggling to heat their homes right now. Crucially, my amendment would also require the Government’s assessment to cover the impact of the investment allowance on the UK’s ability to meet its domestic and international climate targets. The Glasgow climate pact, which the UK presided over, includes the commitment to pursue efforts to limit global heating to 1.5°C degrees, but the UN has made it clear that Governments plan to produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with staying below that critical threshold. I am aware that a number of amendments seek that kind of assessment of the investment allowance, and I welcome them, but I believe mine goes further because it would require the assessment to consider the impact on the 1.5° target, in addition to net zero and the UK’s carbon budgets.

It is no longer acceptable for the Government to look at its policies in isolation from our planet’s shared carbon budget. Not only does oil and gas extracted in the UK add to global emissions regardless of where it is burned, but, as the Committee on Climate Change has acknowledged, further extraction

“will support a larger global market overall”—

I remind hon. Members that that global market already has more oil and gas planned than we can possibly burn in keeping below 1.5°, and that is before we start extracting more. I therefore urge the Government not only to accept my new clause but to scrap the investment allowance once and for all, for the sake of our climate and the lives of so many people who are struggling with the cost of living crisis.