Robbie Moore
Main Page: Robbie Moore (Conservative - Keighley and Ilkley)Department Debates - View all Robbie Moore's debates with the HM Treasury
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Robbie Moore Excerpts(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
I welcome the introduction of the carbon border adjustment mechanism in the Bill. It shows a commitment from this Government to supporting British industry, which underpins the fabric of local economies and communities across the country, including Mid and South Pembrokeshire.
For British industries included in its scope, a CBAM means they can compete on a level playing field with industries in the global market. It works by applying a charge to the carbon emitted during the production of imported carbon-intensive goods. That ensures that our domestic producers do not face higher production costs compared with their foreign competitors operating in countries where the price of carbon is lower. That is critical, for without a CBAM, those industries will go elsewhere, moving production to low-regulation, high-emission countries. We would lose jobs, investment and our industrial base while simply offshoring our emissions. That is carbon leakage: decarbonisation at the cost of deindustrialisation. It would be devastating for industrial communities across the country, in my constituency of Mid and South Pembrokeshire. That is why I call on the Government to expand the scope of the CBAM to include the oil refining industry.
Refined petroleum products are highly exposed to carbon leakage, and without the protection of the CBAM, we risk losing this industry. There would be untold consequences for communities like mine in Pembrokeshire, which is the home of one of the UK’s four remaining oil refineries. Locally, the refining sector employs over 1,000 people. Nationally, it accounts for 15% of Welsh export GDP. Oil refinery continues to be foundational to the UK’s economy and energy security; oil products supply 47% of the UK’s final energy demand and support thousands of skilled jobs in industrial communities like Pembrokeshire.
The transition to net zero must be a just one. It cannot come at the cost of deindustrialisation and greater economic deprivation in communities like mine. As the party of working people, it is incumbent on this Labour Government to manage this energy transition by protecting the jobs and skills base of today while building the industries of tomorrow. Recent global events have shown once again how trade flows can change overnight, threatening our energy security and directly impacting the cost of living for our constituents. As a Government, we must be agile in responding, providing the support and certainty our communities and industries need to weather the storms.
A CBAM can provide targeted support to industry during turbulent times. However, the Bill in its current form requires the effectiveness of the CBAM to be reviewed only after five years. I hardly need to remind the House how dramatically the geopolitical landscape can change in that time. That is why I urge the Minister to consider making provision for yearly reviews of the CBAM during its first five years. This would allow the Treasury to respond to unforeseen events and ensure that the CBAM continued to achieve its objective, minimising the risk of carbon leakage for carbon-intensive industries in the UK, so that our decarbonisation efforts could lead to a true reduction in global emissions rather than simply displacing carbon emissions overseas.
We are at a critical juncture for British industry. Decisions made by this Government will shape the UK’s ability to safeguard industrial jobs and maintain global competitiveness while meeting net zero objectives and creating jobs for the future without simply offshoring our emissions. This Bill continues the Government’s work to build a stronger, fairer country by growing our economy, raising living standards and, crucially, investing in our public services. The introduction of the CBAM is a vital part of this broader package of measures, but I urge the Minister to consider expanding its scope and reviewing it annually to ensure that it delivers on its important objectives in a rapidly changing world.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I rise to speak about the changes that have been made in relation to inheritance tax, which is impacting many of our family farming businesses and also those family businesses that operate in many of our constituencies. I rise specifically to speak to amendments 89 and 90, which, if agreed, would remove the liability for inheritance tax on the share of a tenancy at arm’s length that transfers on death.
This Government’s ill-handling of the family farm tax has left our farmers in limbo and their confidence in tatters. Thanks to Labour’s disastrous family farm tax and family business tax, our farmers and many hard-working businesses have spent over a year navigating an already challenging time for the sector, with added anxiety and uncertainty hanging over their heads. Despite the warnings from the entire farming community, this Government pushed ahead with the tax, creating chaos, fear and real damage.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that the way the Government have approached this has hurt their main aim of economic growth, because farmers have delayed ordering and, because of the new rules, there is now no incentive to grow their farms over that £2.5 million threshold?
Robbie Moore
The hon. Member makes an excellent point. Despite the minimal, partial Government U-turn by increasing that threshold from £1 million to £2.5 million, the changes are still impacting many of our farming businesses and therefore the wider supply chain. This not only has a negative impact on the level of investment that a family is willing to put into their family business, but has a hugely detrimental impact on the wider supply chain, including on investment in agricultural machinery and the willingness to purchase stock. This is therefore having a massive detrimental impact on the real rural economy right now.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The hon. Member is speaking very powerfully. The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland has estimated that 4,500 farms, mainly in the dairy industry, will still be impacted by the set changes. Does he agree that, given the need for food security, we need to protect our farms, not do away with them?
Robbie Moore
We absolutely do. The hon. Member makes an excellent point, because we all know that the value of farmland in Northern Ireland is proportionately higher than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, and therefore a huge proportion of Northern Ireland farmers—4,500 of them—who are working incredibly hard are still going to be impacted by the rate relief change that this Labour Government have implemented. They are going to be detrimentally impacted, and that has a wider negative impact on the rural economy.
Despite this partial U-turn, by increasing the level of the agricultural and business property relief thresholds from £1 million to £2.5 million for inheritance tax, the Government will risk once again showing their disregard for the farming community should they neglect to support amendments 89 and 90, which seek to address yet another measure seemingly designed to punish our farmers. The Tenant Farmers Association is a dedicated organisation that represents the interests of all those within our farming community who do not own land, and it is heavily involved in supporting the tenanted sector. I spoke with members of the TFA just this morning and the chief executive, George Dunn, who has excellent knowledge of, and commitment to, the tenanted sector and has provided many a briefing to many Members of this House.
It is deeply disappointing that Government Members do not seem to support amendments 89 and 90 to schedule 12. Should the House fail to agree to the changes in these amendments, tabled by my right hon. Friends the Members for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) and for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) and me, those who inherit a share of a joint tenancy will have no means to capitalise on that share while also having no way to liquidate the asset in the context of continuing business to allow them to pay the tax liability.
To date, the value of any inherited portion of a business or agricultural tenancy held jointly following the death of one of the joint tenants has been fully relievable either through agricultural property relief or business property relief. Given that in most cases it will be impossible for the surviving joint tenant or tenants to realise the value of any inherited share of the tenancy on death, it is completely unfair that this tax, proposed by the Labour Government, should be levied. The unfairness is underlined by the fact that an input value for the share of the joint tenancy would have to be calculated on the profit rent basis, which is the best at theoretical value in any case, which just blows out of context the real damage that is being implemented by this Labour Government. Therefore, I urge the Government to learn from their previous mistake, listen to our farmers and protect the value of joint tenancies by supporting these amendments.
Amendment 88 seeks to delay the triggering of the instalments that are going to be brought forward by the payment of inheritance tax from the current period of six months by 12 months to a full 18-month period. This is so important—the Government fail to realise this—because of how complex it is to value the assets that are likely to be subjected to an IHT liability. When looking at farming businesses, we are not only valuing the farmland. There may be a farmhouse and a cottage or two, and the livestock, the machinery, the growing crops and the crops in store will all have a value associated with them. It is therefore complex to ascertain the value within the six-month period that the Government have outlined.
And it gets more complicated still. We find ourselves in the bizarre scenario where two assets on death with a value of £5 million could be subjected to different IHT liabilities depending on the ownership structure and whether the spousal allowance is being utilised—therefore exposing any tax liability on death to challenge, quite rightly, by those with whom the tax liability sits. To have a deadline of six months for that tax liability to be triggered, and for an instalment to be paid, will simply not be sustainable. I therefore urge the Government to support amendment 89 in my name and that of the official Opposition.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I am sure that, like me, he has received many emails and letters from farmers over the last few days, given that the price of red diesel, heating oil and fertiliser has gone up in the light of recent uncertain events. Does that not demonstrate and remind us all how fragile farming businesses are? The idea that farmers will have sufficient money sitting in the bank to pay this tax bill is for the birds.
Robbie Moore
It is absolutely for the birds. Not only are our farming businesses being attacked through the changes to inheritance tax, but they face complications and additional burdens through challenges with cashflow. We have already seen de-linked payments drop dramatically for many of our farming businesses. The sustainable farming incentive has been chopped, changed and moved around, and we are not sure what the fundamentals will be when the new SFI is rolled out in the summer. When that is coupled with additional costs, and with red diesel going up, the cashflow challenges increase, as many of my hon. Friend’s constituents, and constituents of Members from across the House, have realised. When the Government put an additional burden on a potential inheritance tax liability, it only increases the anxiety in our farming communities.
This morning, in addition to meeting the Tenant Farmers Association, I met the CLA and the presidential team there, including Gavin Lane. He put it across to me very clearly—he rightly continues to campaign on the matter—that the family farm tax must ultimately be abolished. That is why we Conservative Members reiterate our commitment that there will be 100% agricultural property relief and business property relief if we are lucky enough get back into government.
Finally, there is the issue of indexation. Setting the threshold at £2.5 million takes no account of the value of farmland increasing; our farming community and family businesses will be further impacted when the value of assets rises further down the line, while the threshold is maintained at £2.5 million.
We are at the final stages of the Finance Bill, yet we do not have any further clarity from the Government on the timings associated with extending the point at which payment is made from six months to the 18 months that we are requesting. We have no certainty that indexation will be linked to the threshold, which has been increased, though minimally, and no assurance that the Government actually get how our farming community operates.
I hope that the Government will consider amendments 88, 89 and 90 and the associated amendments in my name and the name of the Opposition Front Benchers, and that they will ultimately agree with amendment 6, which scraps the family farm and business tax in its entirety.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
Before I start, I should declare that I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on gambling reform. I want to talk about new clauses 8 and 9, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) spoke to earlier. They are thoughtful, well-meaning new clauses that address real concerns. I want to add a bit of context, and set out what the evidence shows about the black market and the situation in Gibraltar.
Industries associated with harm often use the black market as an excuse to avoid regulation or additional taxation. When I was on the Finance Bill Committee last year, we received a lot of correspondence from the tobacco industry, in which it made the same sort of claim. We were seeking to increase taxes—the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), might remember the debate—and the tobacco industry was using the black market as an excuse for why that should not happen. In the gambling sector, the threat of the black market is overblown. The regulated market is dominant, and in recent years there have been lots of taxation changes that have not increased the size of the black market. I will give two examples.
When we changed from taxing turnover to taxing profit in 2001, the black market was highlighted as a risk, but there were no real changes. Again, when we introduced the point-of-consumption tax in 2014, there was no surge in unregulated or black market gambling. Indeed, a 2021 Gambling Commission study found that only a very small proportion of UK gamblers ever used unlicensed sites, and they did so mostly by accident. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central accurately pointed out, people who are banned from regulated sites sometimes turn to the unregulated sector, and that truly is a problem.
Focusing on the black market risks diverting attention away from the significant and better-evidenced harms in the regulated sector. Those harms are most widespread in the areas in which we are seeking to increase taxes—we have discussed that, so I will not go into it too much. However, it is important that we tackle the black market, so I welcome the illegal gambling taskforce that has been introduced, as well as the additional £26 million for the Gambling Commission to address those issues. We should not buy into the narrative that risks from the black market should stop us making changes to keep people safe from the most harmful forms of gambling.
If the tax changes are as economically damaging for Gibraltar as has been claimed, we need to consider how they work in other jurisdictions. The same gambling organisations often operate in other countries with much higher tax rates than the UK, and they manage to survive profitably in those sectors. I think that we should take that into account when considering new clause 9 and the impact on Gibraltar.
Robbie Moore
I endorse what the hon. Member says. I cannot get my head around the fact that there are so many family businesses, beyond the agricultural sector, that will be impacted by the business property relief threshold at £2.5 million. They include manufacturing businesses and those in the hospitality sector, and many of them will be in the constituencies of Labour MPs. I cannot understand why, during the course of this Bill, many Labour MPs have been silent on the issue of business property relief, and why they are not standing up for family businesses. I endorse what the hon. Member says about fire sales happening as a result of an increased inheritance tax liability.
Kirsty Blackman
Given that we have a Labour Government who care about workers’ rights, the family businesses that I have visited have a strong worker involvement. The people who work there are cared for and looked after because it is a family business, and one would think that the Labour party would want to support more of those rather than encouraging people to get out of that place. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I have big concerns on the matter.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) is currently leading a debate in Westminster Hall, he is unable to speak to his amendments himself, so I would like to talk about the reasons that he has tabled them. He has tabled a number of amendments in relation to APR and the anti-forestalling clauses. We are pleased that the threshold for APR was raised—that is welcome—but we are concerned about the backdating and the fact that the changes relate to things from 2024 onwards, rather than from April 2026 onwards. My hon. Friend’s amendments relate specifically to those anti-forestalling issues and ask for changes to be made, so that there is no backdating on the transactions. A number of agricultural organisations and farmers in his constituency have asked for those changes to be made, which is why he has put forward those amendments. The Government have raised the threshold, which is welcome, but if they continue to push forward with this measure, that will not be enough. Either cancelling it completely, as suggested by the Conservatives, or looking at the date would be incredibly helpful in ensuring that it is not backdated or retrospective, so that people do not lose relief on changes announced or made previous to the Budget.
My hon. Friend also tabled amendments in relation to whisky duty, which would take out clause 86. Over the last three years, we have seen an 18% hike in whisky duty. The figures show that there will be a £600 million downgrade in receipts as a result of continuing to increase this tax. Increasing the tax will reduce receipts, which will result in jobs in Scotland being put at risk, and the Government getting less money. I do not understand the logic of continuing to push ahead with raising whisky duty.
We really want the Government to think again. [Interruption.] To be fair, the 18% hike over three years was down to both Labour and the Conservatives, so I am afraid that the Conservatives do not have a huge amount of high ground. This issue has happened under both parties, but we will continue to fight on behalf of Scottish whisky producers. The tax on spirits needs to be looked at seriously, because this is an important part of the Scottish economy; it provides jobs in rural areas where depopulation is a big issue. We need these companies to continue, but if the Government continue to raise tax and hike the tax rates, we will see those jobs dropping off.
Amendment 140 has not been selected, but it is the only amendment put forward by our merry band of Reform colleagues, although they signed some other amendments. If anyone looks at that amendment, which we would presume is Reform’s key priority, given that that is the only amendment it has put forward, they will see that it would remove clause 88, which increases cigar duty. The main priority of Reform in the entire Finance Bill is that the Government should not be allowed to increase duty on cigars. That says a huge amount about the priorities of those who sit on the Reform Benches for the general people. To be fair, no Reform Members are here.
Dan Tomlinson
I am just stating a fact, which is that there are few—if any—businesses near the relevant thresholds. The hon. and learned Member made the point that the Government’s decision may be hampering growth and investment; I do not think that is the case. I am proud to be a member of a Government who are seeking to deepen and strengthen our ties with the European Union so that we in this country can increase our productivity through better flowing trade, working together with our partners. I therefore urge the House to reject amendments 112 to 139.
Amendments 6 and 8 relate to the changes to business property relief and agricultural property relief as raised by the shadow Exchequer Secretary as well as the hon. Members for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) and for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). If we were to adopt those amendments, we would weaken the public purse by about £300 million a year. It would also leave a status quo that contributes to the very largest estates paying lower average effective inheritance tax rates than the smallest estates. I therefore urge the House to reject those amendments.
The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley asked for clarity on payment deadlines in the inheritance tax system. The Government’s position is that the six-month point is the right one. It has applied for a long time, and it is not our position to change that timeline when these changes come into force.
Robbie Moore
I note that that is the Government’s position, but what level of assessment have they done of the negative implications of having just a six-month period as opposed to extending that to 18 months? From the engagement that Opposition Members have had with many stakeholders, we have found that the consequences are huge. What assessments have the Government done in relation to this specific issue?