Finance (No. 2) Bill

James Murray Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 20th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

That gives me the opportunity to declare that I sat not only on the Joint Committee for that Bill but on the Select Committee. There was a great deal of concentration and discussion, as I recall—the House will have to forgive me as I am rolodexing back several years in my memory—about the meaning of communications data, because of the sensitivities in relation to some of the powers rightly given to our security services in order to safeguard national security and for other purposes.

There has been some debate about how the General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act apply in the years that have fallen since. The clarification has been made because the Home Office wanted to ensure that it defines that accurately, protects citizens’ rights and permits Government agencies, law enforcement agencies and other agencies to collect and review the data necessary to protect us all. We are tabling this amendment now at the first opportunity we have had, to ensure that that phrasing still permits HMRC to collect the vital data that we need to ensure that our taxes are collected properly. To sum up my point on new clause 5, the civil information powers allow HMRC to continue to collect vital revenue to fund our public services.

In conclusion, the Government’s proposed amendments will ensure that the legislation works as it should and that HMRC has the powers it needs to continue collecting tax revenue that is vital to fund our public services that so many in our country rely on. I will, of course, address all amendments tabled by other Members when I wind up later. I very much want to listen closely to the debate that will now follow. In the meantime, I commend amendments 9 to 19 and new clauses 4 and 5 to the House. I urge hon. Members to accept them in due course.

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

It is important, briefly, to first recognise the context in which we consider amendments and new clauses to the Bill. Yesterday we heard the news that the average rate for a two-year fixed-rate mortgage has now breached 6% for the first time since December. That news will leave the 400,000 people across the country whose existing fixed deals end between July and September feeling anxious and fearful. They face the prospect of having hundreds of pounds less in their pockets each month when their current deal expires and they have to re-mortgage. That is not to mention all those on variable rates, who have already seen their payments rise relentlessly as a result of interest rates going up again and again.

Across the country, mortgage payers are facing interest rate rises above 6% for the second time in 12 months. The first time came in the wake of the Conservatives’ disastrous mini-budget last autumn; now it is because inflation means that banks expect interest rates to stay higher for far longer than anyone feared. The truth is that mortgage payers are feeling pain because the Tories crashed the economy and have no plan to fix it. What is more, we know the current increases in mortgage payments come after 13 years of low growth and stagnant wages. They also come after 25 tax rises by the Government in this Parliament alone, increases that have pushed the tax burden in this country to its highest level in 70 years.

I will begin considering the detail of our amendments on Report by focusing on something very rare indeed: a tax cut from this Government. That tax cut is included in clause 18. Through that section of the Bill, the Government will be spending £1 billion of public money a year to benefit the 1% of people with the biggest pension pots. Ministers may claim that their decision was driven by a desire to get doctors back into work, but since the policy was first announced the Government have flatly rejected any call to consider a fairer and less costly fix targeted at doctors’ pensions.

It is not just Labour who have been questioning the Government’s approach; the Conservative Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), said that even she was surprised that Ministers had opted for a blanket cut rather than a bespoke policy for doctors. That is why we will be voting today for our amendment 1, which deletes clause 18, thereby abandoning plans for this blanket change that fails to spend public money wisely. As our new clause 1 makes clear, the Chancellor should finally do what so many have been calling on him to do and produce an alternative approach to pensions that is targeted at NHS doctors and provides taxpayers with value for money.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I put on the record that while the hon. Gentleman quotes me correctly, I underline that I was pleasantly surprised.

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Lady, I think, for that intervention. I am trying to work out exactly what point was being made there, but I think the overall point is clear. There is concern from all sides at £1 billion a year of public money being spent on a blanket change, rather than something targeted at NHS doctors.

That failure to spend public money wisely is evident again in the Bill’s proposal to reduce air passenger duty for domestic flights, the impact of which our new clause 10 seeks to uncover. Again, at a time when public finances are under severe pressure, household budgets are being stretched in all directions and the cost of inaction on climate change grows by the day, it is baffling that a tax cut for frequent flyers is the Government’s priority for spending public money.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I just want to take the hon. Gentleman back, if I may, to the point he made on pensions. Can he not see the difficulty of having a specific regime for NHS doctors? For example, if he were to bring in a specific regime, would it apply to doctors who also work in the private sector? What would happen if an NHS doctor changed career and became an accountant? There are other areas where we have difficulty securing the services of public servants beyond a certain point, for example judges, prison governors or senior police officers. Is he proposing that each of those areas should have their own specific scheme and that therefore we should build a sort of rats’ nest of complexity around pensions?

[James Murray]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, but I feel he is misguided in claiming that it is somehow only Labour calling for a doctors-only pension scheme to be investigated. I referred to the Chair of the Treasury Committee, but I could also refer to the current Chancellor—the current Chancellor—who less than a year ago suggested that we should go for a doctors-only scheme. All we are asking is for the current Chancellor to do what he told himself to do less than a year ago and investigate the possibilities. That is important, because that is how we spend public money wisely.

To return to air passenger duty, Ministers may try to point out, when we discuss it later in the debate, that the lower rate of domestic air passenger duty has been accompanied by the introduction of an ultra long-haul rate. But when taken together, the air passenger duty changes in the Bill are set to cost the taxpayer an additional £35 million a year. That cannot be the right priority for spending public money. In Committee, we tried to get to the bottom of why this tax cut is being prioritised.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on that point. How does the shadow Minister square his comments with those made by the Welsh Government calling for air passenger duty to be devolved and abolished to support Cardiff Airport, which they have purchased?

[James Murray]

I will leave matters for the Welsh Government to the Welsh Government to set out their position. We are trying to challenge the position of the UK Government on air passenger duty.

Whatever the UK Government say, the reasoning behind air passenger duty changes have been hard to come by. In Committee, we wanted to understand why the cost of domestic flights is so high up the agenda of this Government under this Prime Minister. I asked the Minister whether, if someone were to travel by helicopter around the UK, for instance from London and Southampton, that would be subject to air passenger duty. I could equally have asked if that would be the case if someone were to get a helicopter ride from London to Dover. At the time, the Minister clarified that there is no air passenger duty other than on fixed-wing aircraft, so that anyone wanting to make short hops in a helicopter can rest assured that this tax would not apply.

I also asked the Minister whether, if someone travelled on a private jet around the UK from, say, London to Blackpool, what rate of air passenger duty would apply in that case. The Minister confirmed that private jets will not benefit from the domestic air passenger duty cut—something the Chancellor may want to let his neighbour on Downing Street know. Finally, I asked the Minister what rate of air passenger duty would apply if someone lived in the UK but was travelling to another home of theirs, let us say in Santa Monica, California. The Minister did not say at the time whether such a flight would attract the ultra long-haul rate, but my understanding is that it would not, so anyone on the Government Benches who needs to fly to their Los Angeles home will not be hit.

It is clear from the Tories’ approach that they have no idea how to spend public money wisely, and that their judgment over what to prioritise is at odds with the British people. Under the Conservatives in this Parliament alone, people across Britain have faced 25 tax rises and 12 interest rate rises. Yet the Tories think the priorities for taxpayers’ money in the middle of a cost of living crisis should be tax cuts for frequent flyers and for those with the very largest pension pots. The truth is that under the Conservatives, working people always end up paying the bill.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

On the Government Benches, we get tired of hearing from the Opposition Benches about taking taxpayers’ money. This is money the poor taxpayer is having to pay in the first place and should not be taxed on. So far as pensions are concerned, surely the aim for all of us is to have, if we can afford to, sufficient money to live free of the state and off the state at the end of our years, thereby allowing taxpayers’ money to be effectively used for those who really do need it.

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. At one point I thought he was touching on a point that we might agree on, which is that spending public money is about priorities. It is about making choices on how to spend public money wisely. That is important at any stage for any Government, but in the middle of a cost of living crisis, when household budgets are being stretched and people are facing mortgage payments going up relentlessly, it is more important than ever that we prioritise the spending of public money and spend taxpayers’ money wisely. That is really at the heart of the argument I am making. We need a fairer tax system in this country, but time and again the Conservative Government have ignored chances that were in front of them to do something about it. Our new clause 9 relates to the Government’s approach to non-dom tax status—the £3.2 billion a year loophole that the Prime Minister called “that non-dom thing”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that non-doms who could pay zero inheritance tax in other places around the world and need not spend money any at all in the UK will just stay here and be taxed under his plans? Or will they up sticks and go elsewhere—which they are very capable of doing—in which case we would lose the VAT and everything else that comes with non-dom spending in the UK?

[James Murray]

I would welcome a more extended debate about non-dom tax status. That might be slightly outside the remit of today’s debate, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to some very good research conducted by the London School of Economics and Warwick University on the impact of people potentially leaving the UK as a result of any changes in non-dom status. Getting rid of non-dom status would still net £3.2 billion a year according to the work done by the LSE and Warwick, which is based on HMRC data which they have looked at and which constitutes reputable evidence showing what would happen in that event. As I have said, we would replace non-dom status with a modern system like the one that operates in many other countries around the world.

Let me link the hon. Gentleman’s point to the point made earlier by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). This is about priorities. What is the priority for expenditure of £3.2 billion a year? Is it protecting non-dom tax status, or is it strengthening the NHS and childcare? That is at the heart of the question we are asking today.

As well as closing the non-dom loophole—about which I could speak at length— we will keep pressing the Government to close gaps in their approach to the windfall tax on oil and gas giants. Our new clause 8 presses them to think again about their investment allowance loopholes. We believe it is wrong for Ministers to leave billions of pounds of windfall profits for oil and gas giants on the table when some of that money should be helping to support families through the cost of living crisis.

We know, of course, that making our tax system fairer is not just a question of having the right legislation in place domestically; it is also a question of working with other countries to end the race to the bottom among large multinationals around the world. As our new clause 7 makes clear, we want the Government to remain committed to implementing the global agreement on a minimum rate of corporate tax. This landmark deal from the OECD is an important step towards ending the international race to the bottom on tax, as it calls time on large multinationals which operate in the UK but use low-tax jurisdictions overseas to avoid paying their fair share of tax. When large multinationals do that, it flies in the face of the British sense of fairness, it deprives public services in our country of much-needed funding, and it undercuts and undermines British businesses that play by the rules.

As we have made clear throughout consideration of the Bill, we are glad to see this legislation being implemented. We want to see the global agreement in place so that large multinationals pay a minimum level of 15% tax in each jurisdiction in which they operate. We have raised the need for such an international deal many times with the Government. Indeed, I first pressed Treasury Ministers on the subject more than two years ago, on 13 April 2021, during Second Reading of an earlier Finance Bill. At the time, we suspected that the Government might be dragging their feet because they wanted to keep alive the possibility of a race to the bottom in the future, but now, with Ministers having finally agreed to implement the deal—albeit in a version that they allowed to be weakened from what was originally proposed—opposition to it has galvanised those on the Tory Back Benches.

Two days ago, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) published an opinion piece in The Sunday Telegraph. The headline described the common-sense approach taken with the global minimum corporate tax rate—the approach that her colleagues on the Conservative Front Bench want to implement—as a

“radical plan for permanent worldwide socialism”.

The right hon. Member has tabled an amendment to this part of the Bill, which she said in her piece on Sunday was

designed to be helpful and easy to adopt.”

I would be interested to hear whether the Minister agrees, and how helpful she thinks the amendment is, because we believe that it is designed to undermine fatally the implementation of the landmark deal on a global minimum corporate tax rate. Efforts to scupper the implementation of the deal constitute an astonishing act of self-sabotage on our public finances. The reality is that if the UK walks away now from implementing these rules, businesses will simply be taxed by other countries which have implemented the deal. Let me reassure the Minister that if the amendment is pushed to a vote by Conservative Back Benchers, we will oppose it, so Ministers need not worry about whether they will be able to vote it down even if they lose their majority through a Back-Bench rebellion.

What on earth does this situation say about the state of the Conservatives and about the weakness of the Prime Minister? The amendment, which brazenly undermines the Government’s position, has been signed by right hon. and hon. Members who, within the last 12 months, have held the offices of Prime Minister, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Secretary of State for Levelling up, Housing and Communities, Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and a raft of other ministerial positions. What would happen to the implementation of these rules if the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) became the third Conservative Prime Minister to be forced from office in 12 months, and an MP who supports this amendment took over his role? The truth is the Conservatives have now become totally incapable of offering any certainty or stability, but that certainty and stability is what businesses and investors so desperately want so that they can play their part in growing our economy and raising living standards for people across Britain.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

Has the shadow Minister seen today’s report from the Institute for Public Policy Research? It states that the UK is in the middle of an economic growth “doom loop” as a result of decades of under-investment by Government and businesses. Recent statistics indicate that the UK has the lowest business investment in the G7, ranking 27th among the 30 OECD countries. Does that not suggest that businesses have no confidence in the Government’s strategy, and that alarm bells should be ringing in the Treasury?

[James Murray]

The hon. Gentleman is right to describe the state of the economy as a doom loop. It is on a managed path of decline, which even the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) described as a “vicious cycle of stagnation”. The fact is that without any stability or certainty and without a plan for growth, we cannot get the economy out of that doom loop, which is exactly what we are pressing the Government to do.

I know that Conservative Members may be feeling rebellious today, so perhaps they will consider supporting our new clause 6, which requires the Chancellor to follow Labour’s lead and set out a plan for business taxes that increases certainty and investment. The truth is, however, that even if the Conservatives did set out a plan, no one would believe that they would or could stick to it. Everyone knows that this Prime Minister is weak, hostage to his party, and unable to lead. Only a new Labour Government can bring the stability and certainty that businesses need.

That is what we need in order to boost investment, create jobs and grow Britain’s economy. That is what we need to get us off this path of managed decline, to provide security for family finances once again, and to make people across Britain better off.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I rise to speak to new clause 2 and amendment 7, which were tabled in my name and those of all the other members of the cross-party Treasury Committee.

“Taxes are far too complex.”

Those are not my words but the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he gave evidence to our Committee. The amendments to which I am speaking would give legislative effect to the recommendations of the report we published last week on the work of the Office of Tax Simplification. The report is on the Table, and I encourage all hon. and right hon. Members to read it.

Across the House, I think we can all agree that, regardless of the level of tax, the tax system itself has become far too complex. To give an example, as a result of the Committee’s current inquiry on tax reliefs, we have finally found out how many tax reliefs there are in the tax code—1,180. The unnecessary complexity in our tax code makes the tax system expensive and difficult for HMRC to administer, makes the tax system confusing and makes it difficult for taxpayers to understand the choices on offer and the consequences of those choices for their after-tax income.

A complex tax system can be hugely costly for taxpayers and for those responsible for compliance with the tax code. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury was kind enough to give evidence to our Committee on the VAT system last week, and she described it as the “most complex” part of the tax system. VAT creates a crippling compliance burden for small businesses and, as a result, there is a massive pile-up of companies just underneath that £85,000 turnover threshold. This shows that small, potentially dynamic, growing businesses—the engines of our economy—would rather stay under the threshold than deal with the VAT system.

Unfortunately, the VAT threshold is far from the only cliff edge in our tax and benefits systems. At worst, these cliff edges result in people being worse off for earning more money. In recent evidence to a joint session of the Treasury Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee, we heard how people can suddenly find themselves much worse off, after losing entitlements such as free school meals and council tax support, when they earn only a little more money. Indeed, next winter a person who earns an extra £1 will take home £900 less because they lose the cost of living support entitlement, which we reflected in a recent report. People would actually be better off by working less, or perhaps not working at all, and surely that is something we do not want to see in our tax and benefits systems.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I take this opportunity to thank the many people who have supported me and my colleagues throughout the consideration of this Bill, not least all my colleagues on the shadow ministerial team, the Whips and the Opposition Back Benchers. I also thank the Clerks and parliamentary staff, and third parties, including the Chartered Institute of Taxation, which always provides invaluable support and evidence for us and all Members of the House.

Let me speak briefly to this Bill, which we have considered in detail over recent months. Our feeling as we approach the end of this is that it could have been a chance to make the tax system fairer. A fairer tax system is desperately needed after 13 years of low growth and stagnant wages, and after 25 tax rises by the Government in this Parliament alone—increases that have pushed the tax burden in this country to its highest level in 70 years. But instead, we see the Government prioritise £1 billion of public money a year to benefit the 1% of people with the biggest pension pots. They are prioritising a tax cut for frequent flyers. They are refusing to scrap the non-dom tax status. They are refusing to close windfall tax loopholes. And they are spending their time battling their own MPs over implementing common-sense plans to stop multinationals race to the bottom on tax.

Beyond any individual tax changes, 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 Bill and the approach of this Government.

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.